SSS 
Se 
SES 


aE eH) 
ASR: 


= 


as 


= 


Kean ee 
saat 
: Pech iot ? 


is 


pana 


oe 





ug 
ve ‘ieee 








peti? 
i” V Plas 4 
PTA ei 





THE PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


BY GEORGE McCREADY PRICE 


THE PHANTOM OF ORGANIC 
EVOLUTION. Cloth, $1.50. 


POISONING DEMOCRACY. A 
Study of Present-Day Socialism. 
Cloth, $1.25. 


Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doc- 
trine of Creation, Cloth, $1.00, 


The Phantom of 
Organic Evolution 


By 
GEORGE McCREADY PRICE, M.A. 


Professor of Geology, Union College, Neb. 
Author of “QO. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of 
Creation,’’ etc. 





New York CHICAGO 
Fleming H. Revell Company 


LONDON AND EDINBURGH 


Copyright, 1924, by 
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY 


Printed in the United States of America 


‘New York: 158 Fifth Avenue 
Chicago: 17 North Wabash Ave. 
London: 21 Paternoster Square 
Edinburgh: 75 Princes Street 


PREFACE 


acting as the principal of a small high school 
in Eastern Canada, he began his serious study 
of the problem of organic evolution. His introduction 
to the problem was through the writings of such men 
as Grant Allen, Edward Clodd, and Samuel Laing,— 
not a very promising beginning, some of my readers 
may say. The study soon extended to Herbert Spen- 
cer, Huxley, Le Conte, and Haeckel, together with the 
various other classical exponents of the doctrine as 
taught during the closing years of the nineteenth 
century. | 
In my endeavour to get back to the original sources, 
or to the elementary facts, a vast amount of Govern- 
ment Reports and other documents had to be gone 
through; and for a time it really seemed to me that 
there must be something to the general idea of organic 
evolution, after all. But in the course of my investi- 
gations I came across an example or two of what the 
geologists now call “ deceptive conformity,’’ where 
strata alleged to be very “ young” occur in perfect 
conformity over wide areas on top of very much 
“older” beds, the two being lithically identical, 
so much so that, ‘‘ were it not for fossil evidence,” as 
the Government geologist expressed it, “ one would 
naturally suppose that a single formation was being 
dealt with.’ To me it seemed self-evident that no 
great interval of time could possibly have elapsed 


between the deposition of these two successive beds, 
| 5 


Si twenty-five years ago, while the writer was 


6 PREFACE 


which are so nearly identical in appearance; whereas 
the common interpretation of evolutionary geology 
said that a vast interval of time, represented by many 
millions of years, is here represented by this insignifi- 
cant line between two strata which look perfectly con- 
formable, with nothing to show for this long interval, 
either in the way of erosion or deposition. 

Soon afterwards I ran across something even more 
significant. I found some examples of an exactly 
similar conformity, but in the reverse order, with the 
alleged “old” rocks on top, this time, and the 
“young ”’ strata underneath, but with every physical 
appearance of having been actually deposited in this 
order of sequence. 

A great light began to break in upon my soul. I 
realized that possibly no fossil form is older or 
younger than any others intrinsically and necessarily. 
That is, these buried fossil forms possibly may not 
represent successive “‘ ages” in the long development 
of organic life; on the contrary they may all have been 
living contemporaneously, and may each have been 
buried in its own locality by whatever caused the geo- 
logical changes. Accordingly, if a catastrophic inter- 
pretation of the geological changes were adopted, and 
if we do not arbitrarily put some of these fossils in 
one age of the world’s history and some in another, 
but admit that they may have all lived contempo- 
raneously together, what sort of chance would there be 
left for a theory of organic evolution under such cir- 
cumstances? 

The two decades or more that have followed have 
been devoted to an almost continuous study of the 
problems of organic evolution, with results as shown 
in my published writings. Some of these writings have 


PREFACE 7 


been devoted to the moral and religious aspects of the 
doctrine; others deal exclusively with the geological, 
the latest of the latter class being a Textbook in which 
the science has been reconstructed in such a way as to 
place it inductively on bare facts alone, with the 
theories separately stated. The present volume is an 
- effort to consider all of the more common biological 
arguments which are relied upon by evolutionists to 
prove their theory. While not by any means exhaus- 
tive, it is probably the most complete and specific of 
any of the many books written in recent years against 
the theory. 

There are certain classes of people for whom this 
book is not intended. 

It has not been written primarily for the standpat- 
ters in natural science. So far as my observation goes, 
these men do not read very much on the other side of 
these questions. For them these are closed questions, 
not subject to further debate. For instance, when 
Henry Fairfield Osborn rushed into print in criticism 
of Bateson’s Toronto address, deploring that such an 
address had been given and saying that it tended to 
“confuse ”’ the public regarding the facts of organic 
evolution, he naively displayed by statements in this 
attack itself that he had not at that time read Bate- 
son’s address. And, of course, it would be quite too 
much to hope that such standpat evolutionists would 
ever condescend to read such a work as this, except 
sub rosa. 

These men have long had a quarrel with me regard- 
ing the manner in which these new views are being pre- 
sented. They say that these alleged new scientific 
facts have not been presented in the regular or ethical 
way, that is, through the standard scientific journals 


8 PREFACE 


first of all. And they scornfully refuse to consider al- 
leged facts which have not been first approved by 
some scientific society, or published in “ orthodox ” 
scientific journals, but which have first been issued in 
popular or even in religious periodicals. 

But how shall we ever make any progress in a fur- 
ther understanding of these matters, if the regular 
scientific channels are kept closed to the presentation 
of new ideas which seem heretical to scientific ortho- 
doxy, and then all ‘“‘ reputable” scientists refuse to 
read or consider any new facts or new ideas which are 
presented in any other way? 

Twenty-five years ago, when I first made some of 
my revolutionary discoveries in geology, I was con- 
fronted with this very problem of how these new ideas 
were to be presented to the public. And it was only 
after I found that the regular channels of publication 
were denied me, that I decided to use the many other 
doors which stood wide open. Perhaps I made a mis- 
take. Perhaps I should have had more regard to the 
etiquette of scientific pedantry, and should have stood 
humbly hat in hand before the editorial doors which had 
been banged in my face more than once. But I decided 
otherwise, with a full realization of the consequences; 
and I have not yet seen any reason for thinking that 
I really made a mistake. Some day it may appear 
that the reigning clique of ‘‘ reputable ” scientists have 
never had a monopoly of the facts of nature. 

Secondly, this book is not intended for that large 
class of ‘‘ progressive ” theologians who claim that re- 
ligion is merely a matter of internal, psychological ex- 
perience, that it does not have anything to do with the 
objective facts of natural science, nor do the latter 
have anything to do with religion. People who are 


PREFACE 9 


obsessed by this bias or prejudice derived from the 
Kantian philosophy cannot be expected to attend to 
any such objective evidence as may be here presented. 
A complementary class is found among scientists, 
who affect to ignore any line of argument which brings 
God or the truths of religion into correlation with 
scientific facts. But I cannot thus put asunder what 
God has joined together; to me religion and objective 
facts are only different aspects of one great unity; and 
I believe that any method of handling any subject is 
correct and proper, providing it adheres to the well- 
recognized canons of logical and philosophical method. 
I regret to say that many of my fellow scientists have 
so confined themselves to some narrow specialty that 
they are not at home in any general discussion of the 
broader aspects of such a topic as this of organic 
evolution. 

Nor is this book intended for those people with 
chiefly a religious or a literary education who affect to 
ignore the discoveries of objective science. Such per- 
sons would take no interest in the argument presented 
in the following pages. Not only are they oblivious 
of the apparently strong arguments which have hith- 
erto been relied upon to establish the doctrine of or- 
ganic evolution in opposition to the Bible doctrine of 
creation, but most of them are quite unaware that any 
conflict between these ideas has been in progress. 
Such people may as well sleep on, amusing themselves 
in their dreams with the scholastic pedantries of a 
bygone age. 

But this book is written for all those candid people 
among scientific workers who still have open minds 
and are not cocksure regarding the dogmas which have 
been taught for two generations in the name of natural 


10 PREFACE 


science, who are not quite certain that the doctrine of 
organic evolution is forever a closed question upon 
which no further light need be expected. It is also 
written for those among the so-called “‘ Fundamental- 
ists” who wish to be informed regarding the strictly 
scientific aspects of those main questions which are in 
dispute between them and the “ Modernists.” A third 
class of readers may be included, namely, the great 
general public, who may not belong to either camp, 
but who have heard the ringing battle-cries of the lead- 
ing champions of the conflicting hosts, and who wish 
further information as to what it is all about. 


G. McC. P. 
Union CoLLEGE, NEBRASKA. 


Contents 


Quo Vapimus? 
Tue NExt GENERATION 
THE STONES THAT Cry Out 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN . 


Too Many ANCESTORS . 
THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 


THE BLoopy LADDER 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS? . 


13 
21 
44 
67 
91 

113 

150 

179 

197 


“ Phylogeny, 7. e., reconstruction of what has hap- 
pened in the past, is no science, but a product of fan- 
tastic speculations.” | 

J. P. Lotsy, 
Evolution by Means of Hybridization. 


“If one scans a bit thoughtfully the landscape of 
human life for the last few decades, he can hardly fail 
to see signs that the whole battle ground of evolution 
will have to be fought over again; this time not so 
much between scientists and theologians, as among 
scientists themselves.” 

WILLIAM EMERSON RITTER, 
The University of California, 


I 
QUO VADIMUS? 
I 


HE theory of organic evolution has itself gone 
through an evolution or development. If we 
speak of its modern form as having begun 

with Buffon (1707-88), Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), 
Lamarck (1744-1829), or Oken (1776-1851), we may 
well speak of its having reached its culmination about 
the beginning of the present century, and as being 
now well along in its decline. It is still taught (or 
taken for granted) by all college and high school text- 
books dealing with biological subjects; but in every 
single department of natural science, those arguments 
which formerly were relied upon to prove organic 
development from the moneron to man, have been 
quietly undermined and discredited by modern dis- 
coveries. Soon after the beginning of the dispute 
between the Neo-Lamarckians and the followers of 
Weismann regarding the inheritance of acquired char- 
acters, Sir William Dawson declared that Darwin’s 
theory seemed to have entered upon a process of dis- 
integration. But with the progress of discovery we 
have witnessed this disintegration at work with the 
other parts of the general theory, such as the methods 
and the limits of variation, and especially the geologi- 
cal concept of a definite historical series of plants and 


animals in a well-defined order, which is the indispen- 
13 


14 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


sable outline upon which any scheme of organic devel- 
opment must be built. 

The first criticisms of the evolutionary scheme of 
geology appeared in 1902 and 1906, with works by 
the present writer. Gradually this attack on the evo- 
lutionary outline of geology gathered strength; but it 
seems doubtful if any mere academic objection to the 
theory would ever have effected the overthrow of an 
idea which had become so integral a part of all biologi- 
cal thinking. It was the religious aspects of the revolt 
against the theory which gave it strength, just as it 
had been the atheistic implications of Darwinism as 
an “Anti-Genesis,” to use Haeckel’s term, which in 
the first instance had made the theory so popular 
during the closing decades of the nineteenth century. 
To-day it is largely the religious implications of the 
problem which still make it a popular subject of dis- 
cussion. 

But the problem of organic evolution is primarily a 
scientific problem, and ought to be discussed as such. 
I am never ashamed to point out the bearings of scien- 
tific facts and theories upon religious truths; but in 
the following chapters the discussion will be carried 
on along scientific lines, scientific reasons alone being 
adduced as proof, and the evidence of well-known sci- 
entists alone being brought forward in support of the 
facts presented. 


II 
But a remarkable situation must be pointed out in 
this connection. 
The recent discussion of the differences between the 
Modernists and the Fundamentalists has brought out 
the curious fact that the ones who pride themselves on — 


QUO VADIMUS? 15 


their modernness are nevertheless aligning themselves 
with the reactionaries in science. For there are two 
quite distinct classes among scientists, so far as their 
attitude toward the problem of organic evolution is 
concerned. And it is surely an interesting phenome- 
non to note that the friends of the Bible, who have 
been accused of having a “ static ” religion, are never- 
theless progressives in their attitude toward modern 
science; while the so-called ‘‘ Modernists”’ are as 
static or reactionary in their science as they are “ pro- 
gressive ” in their religion. 

The obscurantist or reactionary group among bio- 
logical scientists may be illustrated by such men as 
Henry Fairfield Osborn, J. McKeen Cattell, Edwin 
Grant Conklin, H. H. Newman, Vernon Kellogg, and 
Karl Pearson. These with many others may be re- 
garded as the Old Guard, the standpatters, regarding 
the doctrine of organic evolution. The real progres- 
sives among modern scientists may be represented by 
such men as William Bateson, Thomas Hunt Morgan, 
Hugo de Vries, J. P. Lotsy, J. C. Willis, H. B. Guppy, 
Arthur Willey, J. T. Cunningham, and D. H. Scott, 
men who, though still retaining a general faith in the 
doctrine of organic development somehow, very 
clearly and very positively tell us that they do not 
know kow any such progressive development among 
animals and plants could possibly have come about. 

For many years members of the Old Guard have 
adopted a very lofty air toward their opponents. They 
have systematically ignored all opposing arguments 
which have been directed against the theory as a whole, 
though freely discussing any objections offered by 
“reputable ” scientists against any of the various 
details. But this lofty method of ignoring all direct 


16 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


opposition becomes suspicious when the opposing ar- 
guments have attained their present proportions. For 
it now becomes a question whether the reason for 
ignoring these arguments is not really a fear to meet 
them in the open. Furthermore, the ignorance which 
the Old Guard have been fond of charging against 
their opponents may have another side to it. In the 
present state of modern science, ignorance of biology 
and geology means chiefly an ignorance of the 
wealth of solid scientific arguments against the theory 
of organic evolution. Evolutionists may not be so 
anxious for Fundamentalists to become familiar with 
the facts of biology and geology, when they realize 
that these modern facts are being used against them 
and their theories. ! 

For the evolutionists to keep on ignoring these mod- 
ern scientific objections to the theory of evolution, 
may be an indication of their shrewdness; but for the 
friends of the Bible to keep on ignoring them would 
be an indication of stupidity. For it is a fact that 
the modern discoveries in heredity and variation, in 
embryology, and in geology, make the case against 
organic evolution vastly stronger than even most Fun- 
damentalists have supposed; and it is to a study of 
these various subdivisions of the subject that the 
reader is invited in the following chapters. 


ri 
In other words, all the important lines of argument 
which have commonly been put forward as evidence in 
favor of organic evolution will need to be considered 
in the following pages. They will include such lines of 
study as:— 


QUO VADIMUS? 17 


1. Genetics,— Under this subject will be given the 
pertinent facts which are now known regarding such 
subjects as variation, adaptation, etc. The modern 
discoveries along these lines are the causes which have 
brought both Darwinism and Lamarckism into such 
disrepute as true explanations of how evolution has 
come about. But they leave untouched the larger or 
more general problem of evolution somehow. 

2. Paleontology The evidence supposed to be 
furnished by the fossils has for over a hundred years 
been the real raison d’ étre for any and all theories 
of organic evolution. The writings of the present 
author were the first in modern times to point out the 
false logic of the current geological theories, as well as 
many examples and facts which are wholly inconsist- 
ent with the evolutionary arrangement of the fossils, 
upon which as an outline the theory of organic evolu- 
tion has always been built. Only a mere outline of the 
geological argument can be presented in the present 
work; the details of this argument will be found else- 
where in the published works of the present writer. 

3. Embryology The remarkable facts brought 
to light by the study of the developing embryo during 
the early part of the nineteenth century, were scarcely 
second in importance as giving an impetus to the gen- 
eral idea of organic development. Under the enthusi- 
astic tutelage of Louis Agassiz, the world was asked 
to look at the wonderful parallelism between the 
growth of the individual from the one-celled stage 
(ontogeny), the alleged succession in time of the re- 
lated species (phylogeny), and the present classifica- 
tion of the modern forms in a systematic arrangement 
(taxonomy); and there is little wonder that in the 
hands of Haeckel and others this “argument from 


18 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


comparison ” became one of the very strongest, the 
one utterly unanswerable argument, which always left 
the opponent or objector dumb with a nameless stupe- 
faction. 

As we look back upon this argument and this situa- 
tion from the vantage ground of two generations of 
thought and study, we see that the effects of this argu- 
ment were quite grotesque. How well it illustrates 
the fallacy in logic of attempting to prove a question 
\ of fact by mere analogy. Many analogies, as we 
know, are wholly fallacious; while no analogy can 
really prove anything at all, it can only illustrate what 
is already known from other reasons. ‘Thus we see 
that the overwhelming popularity of this argument 
was merely an exhibition of the gullibility of the aver- 
age person, who has usually had little training in logi- 
cal processes, or who may even have a congenital in- 
capacity for careful, persistent thinking. 

With the collapse of the evolutionary arrangement 
of the fossils, however, the situation has become even 
more amusing to those who can assume a detached 
attitude upon the solid facts of science and watch the 
procession of dupes go by. For it now appears that 
the geological arrangement of the fossils is in reality 
only an artificial scheme, after all, just merely an 
ancient taxonomic series of the total forms of life 
formerly living on the globe. Thus we have two 
artificial series, in the above mentioned argument of 
Haeckel, and only one real or objective series. In 
this view of the case, it becomes a real intellectual 
amusement to watch the methods employed by 
Haeckel, Romanes, Le Conte, and others, in proving 
their theory of organic development. And accordingly, 
this argument from embryology has lost all its force 


QUO VADIMUS? 19 


for every one who has arrived at the sophisticated 
view of geology and paleontology. «« 

4. Natural Selection— A separate chapter is here 
given to the theory of natural selection. Not that 
this theory ever contributed any logical support to 
the general doctrine of organic evolution; and not that 
in this middle of the third décade of the twentieth 
century any formal refutation of this theory is needed. 
A dead lion needs no bullet. Nevertheless, this doc- 
trine has so permeated modern thinking in history, 
in sociology, in pedagogy, to say nothing of theology, 
and in so many ways is this theory bound up with the 
general concept of organic evolution, that a separate 
and formal treatment seems advisable. 


HY, 

Fifty years ago, or even twenty-five years ago, many 
thousands of well-meaning Christians would have 
been glad to make peace with the theory of evolution 
by a compromise. Many were willing to concede 
evolution as the origin of the plants and animals, if 
only a real creation were left for man himself. We 
now realize that this compromise was quite uncalled 
for. To-day there can be no thought of compromise 
in this way on the part of any one who is even 
moderately informed regarding the present scientific 
situation. All the groups of well-ascertained facts 
(in distinction from pure speculations) are now seen 
to be on the side of the doctrine of a literal Creation 
of all the great groups or kinds of plants and animals, 
and against any scheme of explaining the origin of 
these larger groups which could properly be called a 
process of organic evolution. 

As a whole, the theory of organic development 


20 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


from the protozoa to man is a blunder, an utterly 
impossible scheme, if the new evidence of geology be 
given any consideration. ‘True, atheistic materialism 
will always continue to deny the possibility of a world 
cataclysm; but even with this denial, in the light of 
the exposure of the false logic and pseudo-scientific 
methods in the evolutionary arrangement of the fos- 
sils, organic evolution can no longer hold up its head 
among the reputable sciences founded on facts and 
logic. | 

Organic evolution is dead, so far as thousands of 
intelligent people are concerned. This volume is 
merely a sort of funeral oration. Requiescat in pace. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


(Pro-Evolutionary ) 


Kellogg, V. L., Darwinism To-day; 1893. 
Evolution the Way of Man; 1924. 

Le Conte, Joseph, Evolution and Religious Thought; 1899. 

Newman, H. H., Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and 
Eugenics; 1922. 

Romanes, G. J., Darwin and After Darwin; 1892, 

Scott, W. B., The Theory of Evolution; 1917. 

Thomson, J. Arthur (Editor), The Outline of Science, 4 
vols.; 1922. 

Van Loon, H., The Story of Mankind; 1921. 

Wells, H. G., The Outline of History, 2 vols.; 1920. 


II 
THE NEXT GENERATION 
I 


dwarf, both pure bred, we always get all talls in 
the first hybrid generation. There are no dwarfs, 
and no intermediates. And it makes no difference 
whether the pollen came from the tall and the ovule 
from the dwarf, or vice versa. In the language of the 
new science of genetics, the tall factor or character is 
said to be dominant, and the dwarf character is reces- 
sive. But when we plant the seed from these new 
hybrid talls, the plants of the second hybrid genera- 
tion always show a tendency to split up into talls and 
dwarfs. We always get 25 per cent which are talls 
and prove to be pure bred, breeding true ever after- 
wards; 25 per cent which are dwarfs and breed true; 
and 50 per cent which are talls, but by further propa- 
gation show themselves to be hybrids, breaking up in 
the next generation in just the same proportion as was 
stated for the first hybrid generation. And like Ten- 
nyson’s “ Brook,” this process will go on forever, and 
can be tested out by any person in any part of the 
world. Fac ie 
Similarly, if we cross a black and a white (albino) 
guinea pig, we always get all blacks in the first hybrid 
generation; and it makes no difference whether it was 
the father or the mother that was black. But in the 
21 


I: we cross a tall pea (Pisum sativum) with a 


22 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


next generation we get 25 per cent pure bred blacks; 
25 per cent pure bred whites, just as pure bred in re- 
spect to their future progeny as if they had come from 
a thousand generations of unmixed ancestry; and 50 
per cent which will be black in colour, but which will 
prove to be hybrids, breaking up in the next gen- 
eration in the very same mathematical proportions as 
before. 

On the other hand, if we cross a black and a white 
Andalusian fowl, we get something which seems at first 
glance to be different from the results just stated. 
For in the first hybrid generation the chicks are a 
queer mixture of colour, called “blue” by poultry 
men. In this case it seems that neither factor has 
been dominant, but that each has been of about the 
same potency. However, in the next generation we 
get the same old percentage, 25 per cent pure bred 
black, 25 per cent pure bred white, and 50 per cent 
hybrid blue. And thus it goes on ever afterward. In 
reality this case is not at all different from the one 
mentioned above; the apparent difference has come 
about because neither the blackness nor the whiteness 
was dominant, each proved to be equal to the other. 


II 


These facts illustrate the great principle that the 
various characters or factors of plants and animals are 
transmitted separately and unblemished in heredity. 
And the great wonder is that we did not find this out 
hundreds of years ago. 

Thousands of colours, shapes, sizes, and whatnots 
in plants and animals have now been quite fully in- 
vestigated according to these laws; with the result that 
we are now beginning to know something quite definite 


THE NEXT GENERATION 23 


about combinations of factors or characters in plants 
and animals, just as we have already learned about a 
great many combinations which we can make in chem- 
istry. Of course, our knowledge of the possible com- 
binations in plants and animals does not at all ap- 
proach the completeness which our knowledge has 
reached in chemistry. Doubtless it never will be as 
complete; for these combinations among living crea- 
tures are a much more complicated process, and the 
difficulties in the way of biological experiments to il- 
lustrate all these combinations are a million times 
greater than in chemistry. But the two classes of 
combinations, the biological and the chemical, seem to 
resemble each other very closely, and the one class of 
phenomena is evidently just as much a matter of law 
as is the other. 

All these results among plants and animals have 
been worked out long since the day of Charles Dar- 
win. They are known as Mendelism; and were first 
brought to the attention of the world at large about 
twenty-four years ago. Since that time these new prin- 
ciples have completely changed the views and the 
theories of the scientific world regarding heredity. 
One of the assumptions made by Charles Darwin in » 
building up his theory of organic evolution, was that , 
plants and animals naturally tend to vary in all direc-; 
tions and to an unlimited degree. He recognized no 
law in connection with variation, for in his day no 
such law was known. But Mendelism is now show- 
ing us quite definitely How plants and animals vary. 
Just as definitely the new science of heredity is show- 
ing us the precise limits of these variations, and the 
limits of the possibilities in the way of the hereditary 
transmission of characters. And as Edwin Grant, 


24 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


Conklin has said, “ At present it is practically certain 
that there is no other kind of inheritance than Men- 
delian.” 


III 


The Darwinists used to emphasize the fact that no 
two individuals are exactly alike, that not even two 
leaves on the same tree are alike. All this is true; but 
we now see that this general fact has a very different 
meaning from that which Darwin read from it. We 
now know that these variations or differences between 
individuals of the same species are of two kinds, quite 
distinct from each other: 

1. Individual variations, or fluctuations, as the 
scientists term them, which seem to be caused by the 
environment, that is by differences in heat or cold, in 
the amount of food, or by some other unknown factor. 
But these fluctuations never prove to be hereditary; 
that is, they are never passed along to the next gen- 
eration. 

2. The other kind of variations are termed muta- 
tions or modifications, which are born with the indi- 
vidual plant or animal, which are the result of inheri- 
tance, and which are faithfully passed along in heredity 
either as dominant or as recessive characters. 

The changes which are induced in the plant or the 
animal during its lifetime, spoken of as the effects 
of its environment, that is, produced by variations in 
temperature, by good food or bad, by exercise or the 
lack of it,—all such changes are mere fluctuations, and 
are not passed along in heredity to the next generation. 
To use the current scientific phraseology, all such 
variations are “ acquired characters;” and scientists 
are quite agreed that acquired characters are never 


THE NEXT GENERATION 25 


transmitted in heredity. ‘This is the same principle 
as the well-known impossibility of perpetual motion. 
A wheel by its turning is never seen to work up more 
and more speed, or more and more energy of rotation, 
merely by its turning, and by itself. It takes some 
external force even to keep it going. And it seems to 
be one of the best established principles of biology 
that the effects of the environment are never passed 
along from one generation to the next, unless in a few 
ambiguous cases which are clearly cases of degeneracy. 

On the other hand, all distinct characters or factors, 
whether of form, or size, or colour, or whatever, are 
modifications; and they are always faithfully carried 
along in heredity, according to the principles above 
mentioned which are now universally known as Men- 
del’s laws. 


IV 


When these new ideas regarding heredity were pre- 
sented about a quarter of a century ago, they met with 
a great deal of incredulity and opposition on the part 
of scientists; for they were very clearly contrary to 
what was at that time considered to be absolute scien- 
tific fact. The ideas then current, received from Dar- 
win and his immediate successors, had made no pro- 
vision for such facts as these; and it took a consider- 
able time for biologists to get their bearings with ref- 
erence to these new facts. However, the students of 
heredity have long since made up a modus vivendi in 
view of these new principles; and to-day these discov- 
eries of Gregor Mendel, with some related discoveries 
which have since been made, completely dominate the 
whole of biological research in the field of heredity. 

But the reader must not get the impression that 


26 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


under such a system as that spoken of above there is 
no room for anything really new. It is true, that. when 
we are dealing with only one pair of contrasted charac- 
ters at a time, as in all the examples mentioned above, 
there is not much room for any strictly new types, ex- 
cept in cases similar to that of the blue Andalusian 
fowls, which are a blending of the two contrasted char- 
acters. However, when we come to combine two pairs 
of contrasted characters, there is then room for two 
wholly new types to appear; and when more than two 
pairs of contrasted factors are blended there is room 
for many new types, the number of new types in each 
instance being capable of exact arithmetical prediction. 
For example, if we cross a round yellow pea with a 
wrinkled green pea, we get all round yellows in the 
first hybrid generation. This hybrid round yellow pea 
looks exactly like one of its parents; but this is be- 
cause roundness of form and yellowness of colour are 
both dominant characters. That this new pea is really 
a hybrid is proved in the next generation; for out of 
every sixteen in this new generation, we get nine round 
yellows, like the one grandparent, one wrinkled green, 
like the other grandparent, but three yellow wrinkled, 
and three round green,—these latter ones being wholly 
new kinds, so far as their direct ancestors are con- 
cerned. And a certain percentage of these new kinds 
will always come true to seed, thus proving that they 
are not hybrids, but pure bred. 

But it is evident that these three yellow wrinkled 
and the three round green peas have been made di- 
rectly by our method of combination, just as we can 
make new substances in the chemical laboratory by 
proper combinations. And if we were to go on to com- 
bine three pairs of contrasted characters, or more, the 


THE NEXT GENERATION 27 


result, while still more complicated, can nevertheless 
be worked out and explained and even predicted with 
precision, though several quite new types may have 
been originated in this way. Thomas Hunt Morgan, 
of Columbia University, one of the leading workers 
along this line, has produced over two hundred new 
kinds of the fruit fly (Drosophila), almost every organ 
of the animal having varied in one or more particulars. 
Plant breeders have also originated many wonderful 
new types by directed and purposed crossings. 

In the year 1910, a red sunflower was discovered 
growing by the side of the road near Boulder, Colo- 
rado. Now the sunflower is peculiar in that it must 
have pollen from some other individual plant in order 
for its seeds to be fertilized, in other words, it must 
be cross-pollinated in order to develop perfect seeds. 
But there were no other red sunflowers with which to 
cross this stranger. So it was crossed with an ordi- 
nary yellow. Fortunately, the red colour proved to be 
dominant; and several pure bred reds were obtained. 

Sometime before this, the English growers had de- 
veloped a so-called “primrose” sunflower—a very 
light or straw-coloured yellow. What would happen if 
this primrose sunflower should be crossed with one of 
these pure bred reds? ‘The crossing was done; but, 
sad to say, nothing but reds developed. This was 
clearly disappointing; and if the experimenters had not 
known anything about Mendelism, or if all this had 
happened under the old regime of “ pure Darwinism ”’ 
of fifty years ago, probably the experiment would not 
have been carried any further. 

But the experiment was continued; these disappoint- 
ing reds were allowed to cross, and their seeds were 
planted. And in the next generation two wholly new 


28 PHANTOM’OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


types appeared or were separated out, as the Meu 
delians say. A certain percentage of the total plants 
proved to be red, like one pair; another percentage was 
primrose-coloured, like the other pair. But there were 
two kinds which showed a surprising colouration; a 
certain percentage was of a wine-red or old-rose 
colour; while another certain percentage was of a dark 
orange colour. Of course, both the old-rose and orange 
sunflowers were wholly new types. It is probably safe 
to say that such colours in sunflowers had never been 
seen on earth before; for such combinations as pro- 
duced them can hardly be imagined to occur in the 
wild state. Yet if either of these types had been found 
growing wild and we had not known its method of 
origin, and especially if this new and strange colour 
had been accompanied (as it might easily have been) 
by new forms of leaf or of other habits of growth, we 
should without doubt have called it a new species; and 
scientists are now agreed that probably hundreds and 
thousands of just such Mendelian segregates have been 
listed and described as new species, among plants, and 
birds, and insects. 

In addition to the principles brought out above, we 
occasionally see what are termed “ sports,” or ‘‘ muta- 
tions ” arising suddenly in some way that cannot well 
be accounted for. J. P. Lotsy is of the opinion that 
the only source of variation of any kind is through 
hybridization, or through the crossing of contrasted 
unit characters. Other biologists do not agree with 
him; but it is not known how or why these sports or 
natural mutations do arise, if not because of some’ com- 
bination of the factors of heredity. At any rate, when 
such sports or mutations do arise, they obey the law of 


THE NEXT GENERATION 29 


Mendelian inheritance in all subsequent tests of 
breeding. 

By means of combinations suggested by these new 
principles of heredity, many hundreds of new kinds of 
plants and animals have been manufactured in the seed 
patch or in the breeding pen; and these modern 
methods of breeding have introduced rule and system 
into the old hit-and-miss methods of former days. 
Doubtless we have thus produced very many kinds 
which if found wild in nature would forthwith have 
been listed as “‘ new species.” The work of Hall and 
Clements, as recently published in their monograph, 
The Phylogenetic Method in Taxonomy, has shown 
that our classification lists are overburdened with great 
numbers of distinct “‘ species ” which are nothing but 
Mendelian segregates, which will not stand the tests of 
breeding. As Professor William Bateson said in his 
address before the British Association at Toronto, De- 
cember 28, 1921: ‘‘ Plenty of Mendelian combinations 
would in nature pass the scrutiny of even an exacting 
systematist, and be given ‘ specific rank.’ ” 


V 
But where are we, in the light of these new facts? 
Have we at last solved the old problem of the origin 
of species? Do these principles let us into the secret 
of how new types of life have really originated in na- 
ture in the long ago? And is it true that now we need 
only to project these modern laws and processes back 
far enough into the past to account for not only spe- 
cies, but genera, and orders, and classes? In short, 
does this new view of nature help us to see how any 
one distinct type of life may have originated from some 

quite different type of life? 


30 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


When the laws of Mendelian combinations were first 
made familiar to the world at the beginning of the 
present century, many loudly proclaimed that the 
riddle had at last been solved. But further experi- 
ments and further study of the real results thus ob- 
tained have dashed the hopes of those who were look- 
ing to these new facts of genetics for light on the 
general problem of organic evolution. 

As a recent biological writer has stated the matter: 


“T well remember the enthusiasm with which the Men- 
delian theory was received, when it was introduced to the 
scientific world in the early years of this century. We 
thought that at last the key to evolution had been discovered. 
As a leading Mendelian put it, whilst the rest of us had been 
held up by an apparently impenetrable hedge, namely, the 
difficulty of explaining the origin of variation, Mendel had, 
unnoticed, cut a way through. But, as our knowledge of the 
facts grew, the difficulty of using Mendelian phenomena to 
explain evolution, became apparent, and this early hope sick- 
ened and died. The way which Mendel cut was seen to lead 
into a cul-de-sac.” (E. W. MacBride, Science Progress, Jan- 
uary, 1922.) 


Evidently the plain facts brought to light by experi- 
mental breeding are not much to the liking of the 
people who call themselves the representatives of the 
old traditions. Mendelism seems to be getting them 
nowhere, except up a blind alley, into a cul-de-sac. 

Robert Heath Lock gives us a very candid summary 
of the results of Mendelian breeding: 


“On the mind of a biologist familiar with what was 
known of heredity only about twenty years ago, these facts 
must fall with a sense of complete novelty. The ideas cur- 
rent even so short a time ago are not so much extended, or 
even altered, as replaced by an entirely new set of ideas. 
And it may be remarked in passing that the biologist of fifty 


THE NEXT GENERATION 31 


years ago and more was much nearer to our present line of 
inquiry.” (Variation, Heredity, and Evolition, pp. 225-226; 
1920.) 


Lock was a botanist; and it is well known that as a 
class the botanists have been much less free in accept- 
ing the doctrine of organic evolution. In his presi- 
dential address before the Botanical Section of the 
British Association, at the Liverpool Meeting in 1923, 
A. G. Tansley stated that in the light of recent de- 
velopments in botany the search for common ancestors 
among the great groups of plants would seem to be 
“literally a hopeless quest, the genealogical tree an 
illusory vision ” (Nature, March 8, 1924; p. 356). 

In commenting on these pronouncements of Tansley, 
Prof. F. O. Bower, of the University of Glasgow, 
declared: 


“At the present moment we seem to have reached a phase 
of negation in respect of the achievements of phyletic mor- 
phology, and in conclusions as to descent.” And he adds: 
“T believe that a similar negative attitude is also to be found 
among those who pursue zoological science.” (Jb. id.) 


In view of such statements as these, one is surprised 
at the confident agsertions of the public broadcasters 
of the evolution dogma, that all scientists are agreed 
regarding the stability of the theory of organic evolu- 
tion. Perhaps so; but it rather appears to me that 
these confident assertions of the evolutionary advo- 
cates are more like the whistling of small boys in the 
dark, a psychological device to keep up their own 
courage. 

VI 

Prof. Paul Kammerer, of the University of Vienna, 

as might be expected, also takes the ground that the 


32 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


discoveries connected with Mendelism offer us no help 
in solving the problem of how species have originated. 
In a recent publication he thus expresses the present 
situation: 


“ Aside from very limited fluctuations around a fixed cen- 
ter, the predispositions of these characteristics cannot become 
greater or less and cannot be changed at all. Just as in- 
numerable masterpieces of music are assembled from a few 
fundamental tones, just as a few fundamental tints magically 
reproduce multicoloured reality, so is the ability of the living 
world to assume different forms derived from comparatively 
few fundamentals.” 


He goes on to say that the present tendency in 
biology is to emphasize the unchangeableness of types; 
that what little change is admitted ‘‘ would be much 
too limited to bring about a development of species, 
and even still more limited to create even larger groups 
and classes. 


“The theory of evolution at the present time is pointing 
in that direction; it is returning to the theory of non-evolu- 
tion.” (Literary Review, Feb. 23, 1924; p. 538.) 


Of course, Kammerer thinks that this tendency 
toward non-evolution is all wrong; and he argues that 
only by a return to Lamarckian factors can the doc- 
trine of evolution be again started on the right road. 
Nevertheless, this testimony is of value in showing the 
direction of modern tendencies in genetics. Kam- 
merer’s own hobby, the alleged transmission in hered- 
ity of characters acquired by the parents, is much like 
the celebrated glamour of light referred to by Words- 
worth, it is a phenomenon which never was on sea or 
land. 


THE NEXT GENERATION 5) 


VII 


Some years before he died, Alfred Russel Wallace 
stated with some detail the reasons why Mendelism 
does not help the general theory of organic evolution: 


“On the general relation of Mendelism to evolution, I have 
come to a very definite conclusion. That is, that it has no 
relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher 
groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution. The es- 
sential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most 
minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environ- 
ment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition 
of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian 
characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without 
variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, 
they can never become adapted to ever-varying conditions.” 
(Letters and Reminiscences, p. 340.) 


Vill 

There are really two difficulties in this connection. 
(1) Natural species, or well defined species as we find 
them in nature, are quite generally cross-sterile with 
one another, even when we take considerable pains to 
make them cross; whereas the new kinds which we 
have developed under Mendelian methods, or which 
we have produced under domestication among plants 
and animals, are almost invariably cross-fertile with 
one another. Darwin rather made light of this barrier 
of cross-sterility which nature has erected between 
natural species; but modern scientists see in this bar- 
rier something which we cannot produce artificially in 
any way, and which we have never yet seen arise under 
natural methods. In this barrier we seem to have 
something which quite effectually differentiates natural 
species from those Mendelian segregates which we can 
easily produce artificially. 


34. PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


And yet it seems almost certain that very many so- 
called ‘‘ species” of the systematists or taxonomists 
have arisen naturally, even though we may not have 
hit upon the precise method. As Bateson remarks: 


“We may even be certain that numbers of excellent spe- 
cies recognized by entomologists and ornithologists, for ex- 
ample, would, if subjected to breeding tests, be immediately 
proved to be analytical varieties, differing from each other 
merely in the presence or absence of definite factors.” 
(Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, p. 284; 1909.) 


Still we do not know how this barrier of cross- 
sterility which separates most true species as found in 
nature could have arisen. As Bateson himself ex- 
pressed it in his Toronto address: 


“The production of an indubitably sterile hybrid from 
completely fertile parents which have arisen under critical 
observation from a single common origin, is the event for 
which we wait.” (Science, January 20, 1922.) 


(2) The other difficulty with which we are con- 
fronted by Mendelism is even more serious, when we 
attempt to use these facts regarding heredity to explain 
the origin of genera, families, orders, classes, and 
phyla. For we soon find that there are very definite 
limits to the kinds which we can produce in this 
fashion. We find that we are merely working around 
within a limited circle; for by back-crossing we can 
always work back to the original forms with which we 
started, just as the chemist can always work back- 
wards and get the original compounds with which he 
began his experiments. And just as the chemist finds 
that he can never get out of his retorts and test tubes 
any new element which was not already contained in 
the compounds with which he has been working, so 


THE NEXT GENERATION S15) 


does the Mendelian find that, no matter how wide a 
variety of types he may succeed in producing, he is 
still within the charmed circle of the original type of 
life, beyond which it seems impossible to carry any 
organic changes by either natural or artificial methods. 


IX 


The meaning of the chromosomes and some of the 
wonderful facts connected with the developing em- 
bryo, will be considered in a subsequent chapter. But 
it may be worth our while to consider the meaning of - 
the facts which we have been studying. 

The believer in the direct creation of the original 
stocks among plants and animals, from which the 
present wide diversity has arisen by much splitting or 
differentiation, may almost be pardoned for an “I told 
you so,” in view of the facts of heredity as we now 
know them. 

Darwin’s idea was that all living forms tend to vary 
in a haphazard fashion and in about all possible direc- 
tions. He thought also that these small variations 
would become accumulated in one or more directions 
which might ultimately prove “ useful” to the organ- 
ism in a new way. And when these accumulated 
variations had progressed far enough to make the new 
form essentially different from its original, we would 
have a “‘ new species.” In reality this view of the case 
now appears to be little else than a burlesque on the 
real facts of nature. We now know quite definitely 
how nts and animals vary; but these variations are 
by no means haphazard. 

We have already shown that these variations are of 
two classes, fluctuations, which are never hereditary, 
and modifications, which always have hereditary pos- 


36 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


sibilities, either as dominants or as recessives. The 
former are probably the chief ones with which we need 
to be concerned in any comprehensive scheme of evolu- 
tion; but they seem to be few in number, and besides 
there seems to be no method by which several domi- 
nant factors can become accumulated together in any 
one form, so as to make a new type of animal (or 
plant) which is essentially different from any of its 
ancestors. 

One fact of prime importance in this connection, is 
that any natural organism, whether plant or animal, 
seems to possess more potential characters than it can 
give expression to in any single variety or kind. Thus 
it becomes necessary for some of these characters to 
become latent, in order to allow others to be mani- 
fested. This tends to permit many variations within 
the bounds of the species. But this specific elasticity 
as thus exhibited seems to be very definitely limited 
within comparatively narrow lines beyond which we 
have never yet seen a single type pass under either 
natural or artificial conditions. We can produce varia- 
tions galore; but when we have made them we can 
repeat the process over and over again with the very 
same results; and we can by back-crossing return to 
the original forms with which we started, just as we 
can in the case of a chemical compound. Hence the 
believer in creation may well ask, where is the evolu- 
tion in all this? Or how do these facts of heredity 
throw any light on the problem of the origin of real 
kinds, any more than our manipulation of chemical 
compounds throws light on the origin of the elements? 
Quite obviously, in biology as in chemistry, we are 
only working within a definitely limited circle, merely 
marking time. 


THE NEXT GENERATION 37 


And we can now better understand another remark 
by Professor William Bateson, to the effect that, ‘ had 
Mendel’s work come into the hands of Darwin, it is 
not too much to say that the history of the develop- 
ment of evolutionary philosophy would have been very 
different from that which we have witnessed.” 


Xx 


The present situation in biology was well stated by 
Dr. D. H. Scott, the paleobotanist, in his address be- 
fore the British Association in 1921, where he said: 


“ At present all speculation on the nature of past changes 
is in the air, for variation itself is only an hypothesis, and 
we have to decide, quite arbitrarily, what kind of variations 
we think may probably have occurred in the course of de- 
scent.” (Nature, Sept. 29, 1921.) 


He went on to say that, “ For the moment, at all 
events, the Darwinian period is past; we can no longer 
enjoy the comfortable assurance, which once satisfied 
so many of us, that the main problem had been solved 
—all is again in the melting-pot.” He thought, how- 
ever, that the general idea of evolution still remairts, 
“even if we hold it only as an act of faith,’ because 
he said that the evidence of paleontology is still un- 
shaken. Whether this is true or not we shall see in 
the next chapter. 


XI 


However, it may be well to note in passing that not 
all of our leading scientists have retained their confi- 
dence in evolutionary pedigrees based on the fossils. 
Dr. J. P. Lotsy, the Holland botanist, expresses him- 
self as follows; 


28 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


“ Phylogeny, 7. e. reconstruction of what has happened in 
the past, is no science, but a product of fantastic specula- 
tions.” (Evolution by Means of Hybridization, p. 140; 1916.) 


And he seeks to emphasize this point in the follow- 
ing language: 

“Those who know that I have spent a considerable part 
of my life in efforts to trace the phylogeny of the vegetable 


kingdom, will know that this is not written down lightly; 
nobody cares to destroy his own efforts.” (Jb., id.) 


It is worthy of note that Dr. D. H. Scott, in his most 
recent book, while protesting that Lotsy has probably 
gone a little too far, adds: 


“Like Dr. Lotsy, I have become skeptical of late as to most 
phylogenetic reconstructions.” (Extinct Plants, etc., p. 18; 
1924.) 

Furthermore, Prof. A. C. Seward, of Cambridge Univer- 
sity, tells us that “The present tendency is to discard the 
old-fashioned genealogical tree with its wonderful diversity 
of branches,” as at all a suitable method of picturing the 
course of organic development. For he says that “a student 
who takes an impartial retrospect soon discovers that the 
fossil record raises more problems than it solves.” (Nature, 
April 26, 1924.) 


These are clear and unambiguous statements; and 
they are from the very leading botanists of the world. 
And it should be remembered that these statements 
are made by these men quite apart from the damag- 
ing evidence which has been presented by the present 
writer in his various works, a summary of which will 
be presented in the next chapter. 


XII 


Another summary of the present situation was given 
by Bateson before the American Association, at To- 


THE NEXT GENERATION 39 


ronto, December 28, 1921. Parts of this address have 
been often quoted from, but the points which are of 
interest to us in this connection are well summarized 
in the following: 


“We cannot see how the differentiation into species came 
about. Variation of many kinds, often considerable, we daily 


witness, but no origin of species . . . Meanwhile, though 
our faith in evolution stands unshaken, we have no accept- 
able account of the origin of “species.” (Science, Jan. 20, 
tee) 

XII 


The definite conclusions which we may draw from 
all this welter of discussion and experimentation are 
not ambiguous, nor are they of small importance to the 
general problem of organic evolution. We seem to 
have in nature certain great groups of living creatures, 
call them what we will, genera, families, or tribes, but 
usually larger than the “ species,” all the members of 
each of which have probably descended from common 
ancestors. Within any of these great groups new types 
have appeared repeatedly, and may appear again under 
suitable conditions. Such new types, however, never 
seem to get outside the limits of the original types, 
strictly speaking. Possibly, under the very peculiar 
conditions subsisting immediately after the great world- 
cataclysm revealed to us by geology, distinct kinds 
(‘species ”) may have split off or may have become 
differentiated in ways or to an extent which we have 
never yet succeeded in duplicating by any of our ex- 
periments in genetics; but even these seem properly 
to be well within the bounds of those original stocks 
from which these species or genera arose. As we shall 
see later, the Family seems to be generally the original 
unit. But as for attempting to explain by the known 


40 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


laws of heredity and variation the origin of the fami- 
lies, orders, classes, and phyla, this notion seems ut- 
terly fantastic and unscientific. _ 

In other words, each of these great groups of plants 
or animals (genera or families), seems to be a strictly 
closed system, allowing of considerable variations 
within the system, but definitely limited in the number 
and the extent of these possible variations. 

Thomas Hunt Morgan has told us how these prin- 
ciples work out in the case of the Mendelian segre- 
gates of Drosophila, when he shows that the same 
mutant type has appeared over and over again. He 
says: 


“It has long been known, in a general way, that the same 
kinds of mutants reappear in the same species. We are now 
beginning to get evidence from pedigree cultures that the 
same types may occur in different species . . . [They are 
called] identical mutants . . . Such a case has arisen between 
the two species of Drosophila simulans and. melanogaster. 
Sturtevant has shown that there are thirteen mutants that 
are the same in both species . . 

“Tf, then, it can be established beyond dispute that simi- 
larity or even identity of the same character in different 
species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have 
arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from 
comparative anatomy built upon the descent theory seems to 
tumble in ruins.” (Scientific Monthly, March, 1923; p. 246.) 


It is true, Dr. Morgan proceeds immediately to dis- 
claim the latter suggestion, remarking that the inevi- 
table ruin of the whole argument based on comparative 
anatomy is only ‘a first impression.” On the con- 
trary, this impression seems to stay by me for a long 
time; though I am willing to admit that with this evi- 
dence we must suppose the two species here spoken 
of, simulans and melanogaster, have had a common 


THE NEXT GENERATION 41 


origin, and are themselves only equivalent to Men- 
delian segregates. 

But I cannot shake off the conviction that in all 
these Mendelian experiments we are only working 
within very definite limits, tramping over the same old 
ground time after time, though occasionally finding 
some little nook or corner which has not been hitherto 
explored. 


XIV 


No wonder the doctrinaire evolutionists are growing 
very impatient with these evident implications of the 
Mendelian results. In addition to the opinion of E. 
W. MacBride, already quoted, that these new methods 
of investigating heredity have led biologists into a 
cul-de-sac, the same author also declares that Mor- 
gan’s mutations “‘are pathological in character and 
have no analogy with the differences between natural 
races and species.”” Even Prof. W. Johannsen, of Den- 
mark, seems to be of about the same opinion, and says 
that ‘‘ The problem of species-evolution does not seem 
to be approached seriously through Mendelism nor 
through the related modern experiences in mutations ” 
(Nature, January 12, 1924; pp. 50, 51). 

However, to the real seeker after the ultimate truth 
of nature, these discoveries and tendencies are very 
illuminating. It is only the ardent believers in organic 
evolution to whom this whole subject seems distaste- 
ful, who complain that Mendelism has led them into a 
cul-de-sac, and that the problem of species-evolution 
does not seem to be approached seriously by these 
great fundamental facts regarding the heredity of all 
living things. 


42 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


Far from being of assistance in support of the 
theory of organic evolution, the laws of Mendelian 
' breeding are now seen to be among the strongest 
proofs against those theories about the origin of plants 
and animals which have so long been taught to the 
world under the name of Charles Darwin. 

Julian S. Huxley has recently expressed his impa- 
tience at the indifference or even the active hostility 
toward Mendelian investigations displayed by many 
students of evolutionary problems. In a recent num- 
ber of Nature he has expressed himself as follows: 


“Tt is a matter of constant surprise why many who pro- 
fess themselves Darwinian of the Darwinians should not 
only not avail themselves of the new tool | Mendelism], but 
also evince positive hostility to it. The new principles are, 
indeed, the only tool we at present possess which is capable 
of putting evolutionary theories to experimental test. Yet, 
with a few honourable exceptions, most taxonomists and 
‘evolutionists’ prefer to stick to speculative methods—specu- 
lative because incapable of being tested either by experiment 
or by calculation—and make no attempt to use the new prin- 
ciples in experimental work,—or, for that matter, even in 
interpretation.” (Nature, April 12, 1924; p. 520.) 


No doubt the opponents of Mendelism are right. 
These modern methods in experimental breeding are a 
nuisance; for they do not get us anywhere in explain- 
ing organic evolution. These standpat evolutionists 
had better stick to their ‘“‘ speculative methods.” By 
discarding the results obtained from the seed patch 
and the breeding pen they can go on in their dream- 
ing, without ever awaking to the uncomfortable feel- 
ing that they have been running up a blind alley, a 
scientific cul-de-sac. 


THE NEXT GENERATION 43 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bateson, Wm., Mendel’s Principles of Heredity; 1909. 

Bishop, T. B., Evolution Criticised; 1918. 

Bower, F. O., The Present Outlook on Desceni; Nature, 
March 8, 1924. 

Conklin, E. G., Heredity and Environment; 1921. 

De Vries, Hugo, Die Mutationstheorie; 1901. 

Lock, Robert Heath, Variation, Heredity, and Environment; 
1920. 

Lotsy, J. P., Evolution by Means of Hybridization; 1916. 

Morgan, Thos. Hunt, and others, The Mechanism of Men- 
delian Heredity, Revised Edition; 1922. 

Morgan, T. H., The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of 
Species; Scientific Monthly, March, 1923. 

Newman, H. H., Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and . 
Eugenics; 1922. 

Punnett, R. C., Mendelism; 1911. 


III 
THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 
I 


HE most serious mistake made by Charles 
Darwin was his misplaced confidence in Ly- 
ellism. It will be remembered that Darwin 
as a young man had eagerly read Lyell’s Principles of 
Geology, that he had taken a copy of this work with 
him on his voyage in the Beagle, and that to the mem- 
ory of Lyell he had dedicated his record of the discov- 
eries which he made during this trip. And there is no 
doubt that the geological picture of a long series of 
successive forms of life in ever-ascending and increas- 
ing complexity and perfection of organization, was the 
ever-present idea in Darwin’s mind on which he un- 
dertook to build his scheme of organic evolution. It 
should also be remembered that Huxley declared 
Lyell’s system of uniformitarian geology to be “the 
chief agent in smoothing the road for Darwin,” so far 
as he himself was concerned, and so far as multitudes 
of others were concerned who reasoned just as he did. 
In our day, when the biological argument has been 
quite thoroughly investigated and has proved very 
disappointing, it is this background of the successive 
forms of developing life which constitutes ‘‘ by all odds 
the strongest evidence that we have in favour of or- 
ganic evolution,” as Thomas Hunt Morgan has de- 
clared. But in the light of the facts as we now know 
44 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 45 


them, this confidence of Charles Darwin in the accu- 
racy of this long, developing line of geological life- 
forms, is now seen to have been a mistake,—a case of 
misplaced confidence. And I have said that this was 
the most serious mistake made by Darwin, in spite of 
his complete ignorance of the laws of heredity, as 
Mendelism has now revealed them to us. 

It is now almost a century since Charles Lyell first 
formulated and developed his system of uniformitarian 
geology. As we look back upon it from this vantage 
ground of the accumulated discoveries of nearly a hun- 
dred years, the actual amount of knowledge which was 
then possessed by scientists regarding those facts upon 
which geology must be built, is seen to have been most 
pitifully small and meagre. At that time Lyell and his 
fellows knew nothing of the conditions prevailing at 
the bottom of the ocean. Our knowledge of the condi- 
tions prevailing over three-fourths of our world may be 
said to have begun with.the explorations of the Chal- 
lenger Expedition, in 1872. Not only was Lyell ig- 
norant of the conditions prevailing over the ocean bot- 
tom, he was also obsessed with the dogmatic prejudice 
inherited from Cuvier that essentially all of the plants 
and animals found as fossils in the rocks were “ ex- 
tinct species,” quite different from the somewhat sim- 
ilar forms living in our modern world. This prejudice 
about “ extinct ” species was in its turn based on an ex- 
tremely narrow and unsound theory, likewise inherited 
from Cuvier, about the “‘ fixity ” or unchangeableness 
of species. It is true, that even now we are still quite 
unacquainted with the forms of life prevailing over 
large parts of Africa, or South America or Asia; but 
we have at least discovered many thousands of brachio- 


46 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


pods, or mollusks, or crustaceans, or whatnot in vari- 
ous parts of the world which are identical with cor 
responding fossil forms buried in the rocks of North 
America, or England, or Japan, or Australia. 

In another respect also we now see that Lyell was 
mistaken. He was quite convinced that there are now 
slow processes of diastrophism prevailing all over the 
globe. By diastrophism is meant the theory that the 
coasts are in places moving upward or downward with 
reference to the ocean at a slow, gradual rate; and 
Lyell’s doctrine of uniformity was largely based on the 
evidences which he accumulated to prove this doctrine. 
Upon this doctrine Lyell built up his system of uni- 
formity; and his thought was that if these hypothetical 
changes of level around the coasts could be prolonged 
over a Sufficient length of time, the bottom of the 
ocean might become dry land, or the land might in 
turn become the bottom of the ocean; and this would 
then explain why we now find sea creatures as en- 
tombed fossils in the limestones and shales of our 
plains and mountains. 

I do not have the space here to enter upon this sub- 
ject fully. The reader will find the matter considered 
at length in Chapter XIII of my textbook, The New 
Geology. To this work also the reader is referred for 
a statement of the facts now known which disprove the 
theory that the various kinds of fossil animals and 
plants have existed in a definite chronological or his- 
torical order over the earth in the long ago. This lat- 
ter was, as I have said; the thing upon which Charles 
Darwin built up his scheme of organic evolution, and 
as I have remarked above this constituted his most 
serious mistake. 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 47 


II 

It would be an interesting study to trace the de- 
velopment in Darwin’s mind of this idea of organic 
evolution, for he no doubt owed much to the specula- 
tions of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, quite as 
much as he owed to the theories of his predecessors, 
such as Robert Chambers, Lamarck, Cuvier, Buffon, 
and many others. We have not the space to enter 
upon these enticing investigations. We are here con- 
cerned chiefly with a brief account of the general les- 
sons to be learned from a study of the whole field of 
fossil forms as revealed to us by modern geology. 

The great comprehensive fact in this connection is 
that over great areas of our globe we find rocks now 
composing plains or mountain elevations which were 
once laid down by moving water, in most cases ob- 
viously ocean water, since these rocks contain fossils 
or forms of life which live in the ocean and some of 
which live only in the deeper parts of the ocean. The 
great problem of geology is to tell how these world- 
changes have been brought about. Lyellism says that 
the changes of ocean and land were regular and grad- 
ual or slow, similar to changes which are said to be 
now going on. The new views of geology tell us that 
this theory of uniformity is quite inadequate; and these 
new views say that the evidence, taken as a whole, 
points to some great world catastrophe, a real cata- 
clysm, as having taken place in the long ago. And it . 
says that if this great world-convulsion be regarded as 
an actual scientific or historical fact, we can then ac- 
count for essentially all the great outstanding problems 
presented by the stratified rocks and their fossil con- 
tents. We may now consider briefly some of the facts 
which are relied upon to bring us to this conclusion. 


48 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


IIL 

A good example to begin with would be the’ fossil 
mammoths or elephants which have been found in 
Northern Siberia. Most people have read of these 
huge creatures which have been kept in natural cold 
storage for so many thousands of years, their flesh so 
well preserved that it is readily eaten by polar bears, 
wolves and dogs. But many are not aware of the 
enormous numbers of these creatures which are found 
in these arctic lands. Just when they were first dis- 
covered is not known; but ever since the tenth century 
at least, there has been a regular trade in the tusks 
of these fossil elephants, this trade going both eastward 
to China and westward to Europe, with a regular 
market quotation of price current for this fossil ivory, 
just as for wheat or cotton. There is an annual ivory 
sale in London; and while the figures are not at hand 
for recent years, in the year 1872 it is recorded that 
1,630 tusks of Siberian mammoths were placed on 
sale, though the next year only 1,140 were reported. 
One author estimates that the tusks of a thousand ani- 
mals are brought to market annually; while still an- 
other writer in a recent English magazine says that in 
one year he himself saw a thousand tusks. And since 
less than fifty per cent of the tusks actually found are 
in a state of preservation sufficient to warrant their 
being taken to these far-distant markets, one can have 
some idea of the enormous number of these animals 
which must have been discovered in the past hundreds 
or perhaps thousands of years. 

The localities where they are found most frequently 
are also remarkable. Mammoth remains are scarce in 
Southern or Middle Siberia; but they abound in the 
extreme north, along the shore from the mouth of the 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 49 


Obi to Bering Strait. They are more frequently 
found in the banks of the streams or rivers, or where 
the ocean has undermined the cliffs on the shore. It 
seems that they become increasingly abundant the fur- 
ther north we proceed, the islands of New Siberia, far 
within the Arctic Circle, being one of the chief collect- 
ing localities. Indeed, the soil of Bear Island and of 
the Liachoff Islands is reported to be composed almost 
as fully of mammoth bones as of sand and ice. 

Under the extreme climate of these northern lands 
the soil remains continuously frozen to a depth of sev- 
eral hundred feet, thawing out only to a depth of a 
foot or two in favoured localities during the short sum- 
mer, thus allowing for the growth of a few wild flow- 
ers and bushes. Most of the specimens of fossil ele- 
phants which have been described by competent scien- 
tists have been found when undermined by some 
stream, a part of the animal appearing in a certain sea- 
son, next year a little more becoming visible, and the 
whole carcass having become loosened and having 
dropped to the bed of the stream only after several 
years of such gradual exposure. In this way, when 
finally loosened from the cliffs, the body is usually 
much decayed. But even under such conditions, the 
meat has sometimes been found so fresh as actually 
to be used for breakfast by the explorers who happened 
to make the discovery. 

These fossil ‘‘ mummies ” are not found in clear ice, 
as is commonly supposed, but usually in stratified beds 
of sand or gravel intercalated with beds of clay, all 
of the beds being continuous and undisturbed, prov- 
ing that they were buried in these beds as a natural 
deposit, and that the bodies of these animals had not 
fallen into some fissure in the strata. It very fre- 


50 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


quently happens that the animals appear to be in a 
semi-erect position; and thus when uncovered by the 
erosion of the surface, the tusks and the head are the 
first to appear. Not many specimens have been care- 
fully reported on by competent scientists; but it seems 
to be the ordinary thing to find the animals with their 
stomachs well filled with undigested food; while the 
blood vessels of the head are congested with blood, as 
in the case of animals suffocated by drowning. One 
specimen at least is reported not only with a stomach 
full of food, but with its mouth full also, showing as 
one author expresses it, that the animal was “ quietly 
feeding when the crisis came.” 

The modern Indian elephant is so nearly identical 
with these fossil mammoths that there can be no doubt 
they are of the same origin, even if we do not suppose 
the modern ones to be the direct descendants of the 
mammoths; for several other “species ” of fossil ele- 
phants are also found in various parts of the northern 
hemisphere. But the modern elephants are entirely 
confined to the tropics, and whenever they have been 
taken to cooler countries they seem always to have had 
a hard time. History records that Hannibal brought 
thirty-seven elephants into Italy, but that only one of 
these had survived the first winter, when Hannibal un- 
dertook to cross the Arno. The suggestion that the 
elephant might possibly live in the present climate of 
Northern Siberia, seems too grotesque even to be men- 
tioned here, if it had not been proposed by some peo- 
ple in an effort to evade the force of the argument pre- 
sented by these elephants in cold storage. 

The idea has been industriously circulated that these 
mammoths had a good coat of hair; and it has been 
argued from this that they may have been able to en- 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 51 


dure a cold climate. However, from the specimen of 
mammoth skin, a square foot or so in area, preserved 
in the National Museum at Washington, D. C., it will 
be seen that the hair, while long, is very thin, and 
could not have been of much protection against the 
cold. Recently, however, the skin of the mammoth 
has been subjected to a careful microscopic study; and 
it has been found that the skin, like that of the modern 
elephant, had neither sweat glands nor sebaceous 
glands, a peculiarity confined to a few animals which 
live wholly in the tropics. M. H. Neuville, to whom 
I am indebted for these facts, goes on to say: 


“The very peculiar fur of the mammoth thus furnished 
only a precarious protection against cold, a protection analo- 
gous to that enjoyed at present by a few mammals of the 
tropical zone. Its dermis was, it is true, very thick, but no 
more so than that of existing elephants. It appears to me 
impossible to find in the anatomical examination of the skin 
and pelage, any argument in favour of adaptation to cold.” 
(Report of the Smithsonian Inst., 1919; p. 332.) 


Not many scientists have ever attempted to explain 
these fossil “‘ mummies ” without some sudden and ex- 
tensive change of climate. Thus, James D. Dana, the 
Nestor among the geologists of a generation ago, after 
speaking of the conclusive evidence of a warm, genial 
climate in these extreme arctic regions while the mam- 
moth and his companion animals were living there, 
said that this wonderful climate must have been 
“abruptly terminated,’ and must have ‘‘ become sud- 
denly extreme as of a single winter’s night,’ since 
which time it has never relaxed its arctic severity. 
Other scientists have used somewhat similar language, 
for these thousands of carcasses now found in such ex- 


52 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


cellent cold storage are indubitable proofs of these 
facts. 

But what was it that caused this sudden and ex- 
treme change of climate? Quite evidently this change 
of climate, whatever its cause, was associated with 
whatever buried these animals. But we are not pre- 
pared to assign a cause for these facts until we have 
considered several other groups of facts from other 
parts of the world. In other words, we need a general 
understanding of the causes which produced the geo- 
logical changes as a whole; but the facts which we 
have been examining do not tend to increase our con- 
fidence in the theory of uniformity. 

With some people who have not a full acquaintance 
with the facts, the popular notion of a “ glacial age ” 
comes in here as a possible explanation. But this 
myth of a great ice-cap covering most of North 
America and most of Europe, has been effectively dis- 
posed of by Sir Henry H. Howorth, in his three monu- 
mental works, the first of which, The Mammoth and 
the Flood, deals with the specific problem which we 
are here considering. 

One more fact needs attention in this connection. 
Sir Samuel Baker, the noted African explorer, tells us 
that the body of an elephant when killed in the water 
does not sink to the bottom, but from the first the 
body floats with sufficient buoyancy to support two 
men or more. In contrast with this fact, the bodies 
of all other animals, so far as we are aware, sink to 
the bottom of the water, and only after decomposition 
has set in, a period varying from a few hours to sev- 
eral days, will the body rise to the surface because of 
its being distended with gases. But the body of the 
elephant will float on water from the very first. Ac- 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 53 


cordingly, if we may suppose that a great aqueous 
convulsion was the prime cause of the destruction of 
all these animals, it is evident that the bodies of the 
elephants would remain floating on the surface; and 
then if a marked falling of temperature accompanied 
this flood of waters, these bodies of the elephants, or 
at least many of them, would be found frozen in the 
surface ice, and if the latter were subsequently buried, 
the bodies of these elephants would also share the same 
fate and be covered by beds of sand or gravel. 


IV 


Another good example for study in this connection 
would be the fossil fishes. In many parts of the world, 
as in the Green River shales of Wyoming; the Lom- 
poc beds, near Santa Barbara, California; the black 
Shales of Glarus, Switzerland; or those of Monte 
Bolca, Italy; or of Solenhofen, Germany; large areas 
are found with the rocks packed full of fishes in a re- 
markable condition of preservation. Not only is the 
full outline of the fishes preserved, but even the soft 
parts are exquisitely shown, thus giving proof that 
these animals were buried alive, or at least before de- 
composition had set in. Nothing but some extraordi- 
nary convulsion of nature is adequate to explain the 
facts as we find them. 

As is well known, the Devonian rocks were formerly 
known as the Old Red Sandstone. These strata, found 
in almost all parts of the world, are so characterized 
by the remains of vertebrate fishes that they were 
often assigned to an “ Age of Fishes,” by the evolu- 
tionary geologists of a century ago. Hugh Miller has 
given us a very picturesque account of the fossils of 
the Devonian as they occur in various parts of Scot- 


54 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


land, and after saying that the condition in which these 
fossils are found presents us with ‘‘ a wonderful record 
of violent death falling at once, not on a few individ- 
uals, but on whole tribes,” he says that “‘ some terrible 
catastrophe involved in sudden destruction the fish of 
an area at least a hundred miles from boundary to 
boundary, perhaps much more.” And he asks, “ By 
what quiet but potent agency of destruction were the 
innumerable existences of an area perhaps ten thou- 
sand square miles in extent annihilated at once? ” 

In many places in America as well as in Europe, 
where remains of fishes are found in such enormous 
numbers, the shale or slate is so saturated with oil that 
the rock will burn almost like coal. Indeed, Prof. J. 
M. MacFarlane, of the University of Pennsylvania, has 
recently issued a book, entitled Fishes the Source 
of Petroleum, (1923), in which he argues that these 
fish remains are the chief if not the sole source of our 
mineral oils. Formerly it was thought that these ex- 
traordinary beds of fish were confined largely to the 
Devonian. Ina similar way it used to be thought that 
the coal beds were confined to what was termed the 
Carboniferous. But it is now known that coal beds 
occur in every one of the formations from the De- 
vonian onwards; and in the same way it is now known 
that these great accumulations of fishes are also found 
in every single one of the formations from the Silurian 
to the Tertiary. We have already shown that these 
names of the geologic systems have no cheonalogicl 
value, but are simply convenient names for classifica- 
tion purposes. From all this we learn that these tell- 
tale fish deposits occur in all parts of the globe and 
in almost all of the various formations. The evolu- 
tionary geologist would have these deposits formed by 


ne 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 55 


many separate catastrophes; but it would be more 
scientific and more logical to suppose that they are all 
instances of what happened during that great world 
catastrophe which seems to be the clear and unequiv- 
ocal testimony of the rocks in all parts of the globe. 
And if our petroleum deposits were produced by these 
buried fish remains, we can judge of the enormous 
quantities of fish which must have been buried at this 
time. 

In this book by Professor MacFarlane, which was 
published by the Macmillan Co. only last year 
(1923), we have an unusually clear and forceful argu- 


ment to prove that fishes, buried in uncounted millions 
and in some sudden and catastrophic manner in each 


particular instance, must have furnished the organic 
materials from which by chemical change our immense 
petroleum deposits have been produced. We have 
space here to quote only a sentence or two from the 
summary of his argument. Thus he says: 


“In review of the evidence presented in preceding chap- 
ters, the author is compelled to accept that fishes are the 
source of practically the entire supply of crude petroleum, 
also of natural petroleum derivatives like the asphaltites. 
For fishes alone meet the requirements of the case” (p. 384). 


Or again: 


“Tt can be definitely said that, through all of the geologic 
formations in which fish remains occur, a large proportion 
of the remains consist of entire fishes or of sections in which 
every scale is still in position; every fin is extended as in 
life attitude; the bones of the head, though often crushed 
in and broken through subsequent diastrophic strains, still 
retain almost the normal positions; while near them may be 
coprolites of the same or some other types of fish in a prac- 
tically entire state. All of this conclusively proves that when 


~ 


56 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


myriads of such fishes were simultaneously killed, their bodies 
were deposited or stranded within a few hours or a few days 
at most after death, so that the flesh, the liver, the alimentary 
canal and other soft parts were unquestionably enclosed and 
intact, when sediment sealed them up. For numerous ex- 
periments that the writer has undertaken prove, that even 
after five to six days dead fishes begin to lose scales, to be 
attacked and nibbled at by other fishes, by crabs, and by 
smaller fry, while as yet the flesh and entrails are enclosed, 
though softened. We unhesitatingly conclude then that a 
large proportion of the fishes met with in ‘fish beds’ and oil 
strata were stretched out and preserved intact either immedi- 
ately or within a day or two at most after death” (p. 400). 


De la Beche, the first Director of the Geological 
Survey of Great Britain, was quite positive in stating 
that not only the fishes but also most of the larger ani- 
mals must have been buried suddenly in a very abnor- 
mal manner. “A very large proportion of them,” he 
declares, “must have been entombed uninjured, and 
many alive, or, if not alive, at least before decomposi- 
tion ensued” (Theoretical Geology, p. 265, London, 
1834). And in this language this accomplished geolo- 
gist is speaking not of the fishes alone, but of the fos- 
siliferous deposits in general. 


V 

If we turn to the invertebrates, we find the same 
tell-tale evidence from the fossils that they were buried 
in some extraordinary way. In millions of instances 
the two valves of pelecypod mollusks are found ap- 
plied, with the interior of the shells empty, thus prov- 
ing that these shells had not been washed about by the 
currents after the animals had died; for these shells 
tend to gape or open just as soon as the animal dies. 
The brachiopods are also usually found with the shells 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 57 


empty, though there is a small hole in the hinge region 
of these shells which would admit mud if the shell is 
subjected to washing by currents of water after the 
animal is dead. When these valves are found closed 
and the interior hollow it is proof that the death of 
the animals and their burial was probably sudden. 
Further evidence in this direction is found in the fact 
that our modern brachiopods are mostly found in the 
deep waters only, where there are absolutely no cur- 
rents under the normal or modern condition. 

Indeed, the burial of these deep-sea animals in well- 
stratified beds, often mixed up with other animals de- 
rived from the lands, or still more often interbedded 
with sandstones or other deposits clearly derived from 
the land, is clear proof that somehow the normal con- 
ditions of land and water must have been greatly dis- 
turbed. For in the depths of the ocean there are now 
no currents whatever, no movement of the waters to 
disturb the most fragile oozes which now cover all of 
the ocean bottom. Accordingly, nothing but a veri- 
table convulsion of nature could interbed these de- 
posits from the bottom of the ocean with those sands 
and gravels which are solely the products of land 
erosion. 


vi 

These abnormal conditions are capable of endless 
illustration from the rocks. The strata of almost 
every mountain range on earth contain plenty of evi- 
dence of these abnormal conditions. In my Funda- 
mentals of Geology, and also in my New Geology, I 
have considered this subject at considerable length. 
To these works the reader must be referred for further 
details. Here it may suffice to say that the concurrent 


* 


58 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION . 


testimony of the geological deposits throughout the 
world is that some very profound and very enormous 
catastrophe must have happened to our world. some- 
time in the long ago. The cumulative evidence on this 
point can no longer be ignored or denied. That some 
great world-convulsion must have taken place since 
man and the other living spectes of plants and animals 
were alive, is as well established an historical event 
as is the destruction of Carthage or the fall of Baby- 
lon. And any scheme of organic evolution which 
ignores this great world event is simply building upon 
the sands. No such scheme has the slightest scien- 
tific value for the world as a whole, if it goes on abso- 
lutely ignoring this clearly demonstrated fact. Every 
theory regarding the changes which may have taken 
place in the structures and instincts of animals and 
plants, must make a full allowance for this great world- 
event, the most stupendous physical fact within the, 
direct scope of human knowledge. Accordingly, due 
allowance must be made for the consequences of this 
great event in any system of biology or of organic 
philosophy which expects to build permanently upon 
facts. 


VII 

Let us take some more specific examples. And let 
us consider the largest creatures which ever walked © 
the earth, the dinosaurs. ‘‘ One of the most inexpli- 
cable of events,” remarks R. S. Lull of these creatures, 
“is the dramatic extinction of this mighty race.” He 
means that there is no well established reason for their 
extinction at all, least of all for their apparent simul- 
taneous extinction over the whole world. This is what 
makes their extinction so “ dramatic;” for we must re- 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 59 


member that these great creatures were not by any 
means confined to North America, but also lived in 
Europe, in East Africa, and throughout the central 
part of Asia, perhaps also elsewhere. And Henry 
Fairfield Osborn declares that ‘‘ The cutting off of this 
giant dinosaur dynasty was nearly if not quite simul- 
taneous the world over.” Dr. Lull was making no 
chance remark when he called the extinction of this 
mighty race “ dramatic.” 

But we have already seen that many other extinc- 
tions of races were probably very dramatic. If we 
take the elephants and their companion Pleistocene 
mammals which used to live in North America, it is 
impossible to avoid the conviction that they were killed 
off by some most extraordinary physical event. As 
Dr. O. P. Hay remarks, the animals found in the 


Pleistocene strata of North America include the great ’ 
ground sloths, the glyptodons, many species of horses, / 


several tapirs, numerous kinds of giant pigs, camels, 
the extinct relatives of the musk-oxen, extinct bisons, 
many elephants, mastodons of three or four genera, the 
giant beaver, and the sabertooth tiger. As this author 
remarks, “ Genera and families, even orders, were 
wiped out of existence, and these included some of the 
noblest animals that have graced the face of the 
earth.” (The Pleistocene of North America and its 
Vertebrated Animals, p. 5; Carnegie Institution; 
1923.) 

But when we further remember that the long popu- 
lar method of arranging the fossils off in an alleged 
chronological order is now known to have been a big 


blunder, it is very evident that we have a most aston- 
‘ishing collection of fossils which must very generally 


have been killed off and buried by flowing water in 


Pes 


60 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


some most extraordinary way. If the fishes were very 
generally throughout the world killed in such millions 
as to be the chief if not the sole source of our great 
petroleum deposits, if the dinosaurs were probably con- 
temporary with the gigantic mammals of the Pleisto- 
cene, and if the shellfish and other invertebrates also 
present us with similar evidences of having been sud- 
denly overwhelmed, surely we have a most complete 
vindication of the record of that most stupendous of 
physical events, the Deluge of the Scriptures. ‘“ The 
world that then was, being overflowed with water, 
perished.” 


Viti 


One of the most complete statements of the argu- 
ments for organic evolution is a book, entitled Read- 
ings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, by Dr. 
H. H. Newman, of the University of Chicago. It is 
a sort of extended scrap-book made up of elaborate 
extracts from the classical evolutionary writers, with 
many comments of the editor. Dr. Newman gives the 
usual arguments based on the fossils of the horse, the 
elephants, and the camels which have been arranged in 
an alleged historical order in many of the great mu- 
seums. But he undertakes to summarize the geolog- 
ical evidence for organic evolution in ten statements 
(pp. 69, 70). Of these ten facts, not one is absolutely 
and unqualifiedly true; while some of them are per- 
fectly grotesque as summaries of the facts now known 
from the rocks. I need not discuss these ten points 
in detail here. Suffice it to say that these statements 
are antiquated, they exhibit a begging of the main 
question in almost every instance, and are wholly mis- 
leading and deceptive as a statement of the facts of 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 61 


geology which bear on the problem of organic evolu- 
tion. But presumably they were the best Dr. Newman 
could do. 

For the details of the geological argument I must 
refer the reader again to my other works, particularly 
to my more recent one, The New Geology, a Textbook 
for Colleges (1923). But in view of the utter collapse 
of the chronological distinctions between the various 
fossils which have been so long relied upon by evolu- 
tionists, I do not think that the well-informed reader 
can have any profound faith still remaining in the line 
of evidence for evolution based on geology. And yet 
we should bear in mind that no less an authority than 
Thomas Hunt Morgan has told us that ‘‘ The direct 
evidence furnished by fossil remains is by all odds the 
strongest evidence that we have in favour of organic 
evolution ” (Critique, p. 24). 


IX 


Ere closing this chapter we should note again the 
almost complete despair among the modern botanists 
regarding the tracing out of the lines of evolution 
among the great groups of plants. The present situa- 
tion among the students of botany may be illustrated 
by the latest work of D. H. Scott, Extinct Plants and 
Problems of Evolution (1924). No one can read this 
work, together with the recent declarations of such 
men as H. B. Guppy, A. G. Tansley, and A. C. Seward, 
without feeling that these men are about giving up any 
hope of being able to strengthen the argument for or- 
ganic evolution by any study of the evidence furnished 
by fossil botany. This subject is too large a one to 
present here in detail, though a few representative 
quotations may not be amiss. 


~ 


62 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


In 1916, Dr. J. P. Lotsy had declared: ‘‘ Phylogeny, 
z. e. reconstruction of what has happened in the past, 
is no science, but a product of fantastic speculations ” 
(Evolution by Means of Hybridization, p. 140). 

Scott thinks that this may be going a little too far; 
but he says, “‘ Like Dr. Lotsy, I have become skeptical 
of late as to most phylogenetic reconstructions ” (Ex- 
tinct Plants, p. 18). 

He proceeds to say: 


“The evolution of plants, so far as the record shows, does 
not present a uniform progression, but rather a series of di- 
verse periods of vegetation, each with a character of its 
own” (p. 215). 


Exactly so; these diverse groups of vegetation, 
“‘each with a character of its own,” are merely the 
buried floras of the ancient world, and undoubtedly 
all lived contemporary with each other. It was only 
by a confusion of thought that the early geological 
explorers thought they could place the various geo- 
logical ‘‘ formations” in different ages and could ar- 
range them in a real chronological order, though these 
formations have had to be made up from scattered 
localities all over the world. And it is by the per- 
petuation of this blunder that most people still seem to 
think there really must be some reality to the long- 
drawn-out chronological arrangement of these scattered 
floras and faunas, as taught us these many decades by 
evolutionary geology. The zoologists have had things 


1 Notre.—The finding of a large one-toed horse’s foot, well 
carbonized, in a coal bed of the Laramie (Cretaceous) for- 
mation at Scofield, Utah, is like many other similar discov- 
eries which have been constantly occurring during the entire 
history of geological investigations, It is discredited because 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 63 


pretty much their own way, and have been able to 
present their little artificially arranged series of ani- 
mals in such a way as to make these animals “ present 
a uniform progression ” very nicely; but the botanists 
have not been much consulted in the serial arrange- 
ment of the geological formations, and so now we hear 
them complain that their fossil plants do not “ present 
a uniform progression,” as Scott expresses it. 

He tells us some of the ways in which the great 
groups of plants do “not present a uniform progres- 
sion ’’: 

“The record [geological series] shows no time-limit be- 
tween Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons, and throws no 
light on the possible derivation of the one class from the 
other. Both extend back far into the Cretaceous, and 
throughout the whole time the Dicotyledons appear more 


numerous than the Monocotyledons, as they are at the present 
day” (p. 43). 


The large and important group of Pteridosperms, 
with the habit of Ferns but bearing highly organized 
seeds on their fronds, have seemed to the evolutionists 
a promising half-way stage between the true ferns and 
the true seed-plants. But Scott tells us that this ar- 
rangement cannot be made to work. For: 


it is so contrary to the prevailing theories. The finding of 
an angiosperm stem in a coal-ball of the Carboniferous of 
Harrisburg, Illinois, is almost equally disconcerting to the 
evolutionary theories; but it has been announced in an “ or- 
thodox” scientific manner (Dr. A. C. Noe, “A Paleozoic 
Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, May-June, 1923, pp. 344- 
347), and accordingly must now be regarded as “ authentic.” 
But all such discoveries only tend to prove that a fossil 1s not 
necessarily old because it is found in a Cambrian or an 
Ordovician bed, and another fossil is not necessarily young 
because it is found in a Tertiary deposit. 


64 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


“On a review of the whole evidence, the former belief in 
the origin of the Pteridosperms (and through them-of the 
Seed-plants generally) from Ferns must be given up. There 
is no reason to believe that Ferns, as botanists understand 
the name, are any older than the Pteridosperms themselves; 
the points in common between the two groups now appear 
to be homoplastic, and not indicative of the descent of the 
one from the other. Thus the origin of the Seed-plants is 
still an unsolved problem” (pp. 207-8). 

“On the whole, one is impressed with the independence 
of the various phyla of vascular plants all through the geo- 
logical record” (p. 202). 


Evidently there is not much encouragement to evolu- 
tionary speculations here. Even when they have had 
the world to pick from, and have been able (except for 
the predominating influence of the zoologists) to ar- 
range the various scattered “‘ formations ” according to 
their liking, the botanists have not been able to make 
their fossil plants ‘‘ present a uniform progression.” It 
is really too bad. 


xX 


The fact is, geology furnishes no true evidence for 
the theory of organic evolution. On the contrary, if 
we look at the fossil world in a broad way, it is im- 
possible to avoid the conviction of a catastrophic death 
and burial of the vast majority of the animals and 
plants found as fossils in the strata. Lyell and his fol- 
lowers have always tried to blunt the force of this evi- 
dence by formulating an alleged chronological scheme 
of the geological deposits all over the globe, so as to 
have these burials take place a few at a time, on a 
sort of instalment plan. But the methods employed 
to formulate this alleged chronology have always been 
regarded by the keenest and most logical thinkers as 


THE STONES THAT CRY OUT 65 


a burlesque on true scientific methods; and as I have 
shown in my special works on this subject, these 
methods must be abandoned, and a truer and more 
scientific theory of the science must be allowed to give 
us the bare facts, without their being overlaid so com- 
pletely by evolutionary theory. <A true and impartial 
science of geology tells us of the ruins of a world, not 
of its growth and development. 

The voluminous materials which have so long been 
taught to the world under the name of geology, consti- 
tute a vast mixture of facts and grotesque specula- 
tions; and the average student of this science has hith- 
erto been quite unable to discriminate between the 
statements made in the name of this science, and tell 
how much is real fact and how much is only mere 
hypothesis or theory. But this differentiation is now 
beginning to be made. And it is now becoming very 
evident that, if the mere speculative parts of geology 
be cast aside, there are no real indisputable facts re- 
garding the rocks or the fossils which could not be 
readily accounted for by the hypothesis of a world- 
cataclysm. Accordingly, this hypothesis now stands 
before the world as at least a possible explanation of 
the facts, and indeed as much the most reasonable ex- 
planation of these facts. 

But all this is fully in accord with that sublime 
record of the early days of our earth, which tells us 
that the world “‘ that then was, being overflowed with 
water, perished.” 

And if this record be taken at its face value, either 
from nature or from revelation, the theory of organic 
evolution becomes indeed a phantom. 


66 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Geikie, Sir A., The Founders of Geology; 1901. 
Grabau, A. W., Principles of Stratigraphy; 1913. 
Textbook of Geology; 1920. 
Hay, O. P., The Pleistocene of North America; 1923. 
Howorth, Sir H. H., The Mammoth and the Flood; 1887. 
The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood, 
2 vols.; 1892. 
Ice or Water, 2 vols.; 1905. 

(These works of Howorth are an effectual refutation of 
the Glacial Theory. They have never been answered.) 
MacFarlane, J. M., Fishes the Source of Petroleum; 1923. 
Pirsson, L. V., and Schuchert, Chas., Textbook of Geology; 

1920. 

Price, Geo. McCready, The Fundamentals of Geology; 1913. 
The Fossils as Age-Markers in Geol- / 
ogy; Princeton Theological Re- 
view, October, 1922. 
The New Geology, a Textbook for 
Colleges; 1923. ey 
Geology and Its Relation to Scrip- 
ture Revelation; Transactions of 
the Victoria Institute; 1924. 
Scott, D. H., Extinct Plants and Problems of Evolution; 1924. 
Willis, Bailey, and Salisbury, R. D., Outlines of Geologic 

History; 1912. 

Zittel, K., History of Geology and Paleontology; 1901. 


IV. 
FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 
I 


HERE was a time, during the latter part of 
the nineteenth century, when the evolution 
theory seemed a very plausible or even a 
probable explanation of the origin of our various plants 
and animals. At that time the world in general be- 
lieved in the historical value of the arrangement of the 
fossil plants and animals as then almost universally 
accepted by geologists. Charles Darwin accepted this 
geological series as a true chronological outline of the 
order in which the various plants and animals had ap- 
peared on earth; and his argument was that it was 
more reasonable to suppose that the higher forms (al- 
leged by the geologists to be /ater in point of time) 
had developed naturally out of the lower forms (al- 
leged to have preceded them), than to suppose a great 
many successive creations of new kinds to have been 
perpetually going on during the past history of the 
world. And he undertook to show how the change 
from one species to another might have been brought 
about by gradual processes similar to processes now 
prevailing in our modern world. 
This was a very reasonable suggestion on Darwin’s 
part; and when he adduced so many illustrative ex- 
amples, and seemed to give a plausible account of how 


one “species” might become transformed over into 
67 


tn 


68 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


another and distinctly different kind of animal or 
plant, the world accepted his apparent demonstration 
of the “ origin of species ”’ as a proof of the larger doc- 
trine of general organic evolution. But in our day, 
with the total breakdown of the geological argument, 
we are now in the singular position of believing in the 
“origin of species,” in the narrower meaning of this 
term, and yet denying iz toto the general theory of the 
development of the higher forms of animals and plants 
from the lower forms. 


II 


It may be well for us here to consider briefly the 
rise of the doctrine of evolution. 

This doctrine is not of a modern origin. It dates 
from the days of the early Greeks, who, well ac- 
quainted with the teeming sea-life of the waters of the 
blue Aégean, invented novel hypotheses as to the or- 
igin of the various kinds of plants and animals. 
Thales (624-548 B. c.) was perhaps the first of the 
Greeks to theorize about the origin of life. Anaxi- 
mander, his contemporary, taught a gradual evolution 
of the land animals, including man, from certain 
aquatic species. Various other speculators followed up 
these ideas, until in Empedocles (495-435 3B. c.) we 
have one whé, Osborn tells us, “‘ may justly be called 
the father of the evolution idea.” Like all consistent 
evolutionists, he believed in abiogenesis, or spontane- 
ous generation, as the explanation of the origin of life. 
He taught that the development of life was a gradual 
process; that plants were evolved before animals; that 
imperfect forms became extinct, and were gradually 
replaced by more perfect forms. 

“With Aristotle (384-322 B. c.) we enter a new 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 69 


world,” says Osborn. ‘“ He towered above his prede- 
cessors, and by the force of his genius created natural 
history.” Huis knowledge of nature was encyclopedic; 
and while his ideas were somewhat vague, he taught 
many things which are now incorporated in our mod- 
ern evolution doctrine. He rejected the materialistic 
theories of some of his predecessors, such as Empedo- 
cles, and favoured the idea of intelligent design in 
nature. But he believed in the gradual development 
of the higher forms of life, including man, from the 
lower and less highly organized. Aristotle is the orig- 
inator of the persistent fallacy known as “ prenatal — 
influences,” and he taught very positively the inheri- 
tance of acquired characters. 

The influence of Aristotle over the philosophy and 
the science of subsequent centuries was so profound 
that many of the early church fathers incorporated 
some of the prime ideas of the evolution doctrine into 
their teachings. Thus, Gregory of Nyssa (331-396 
A. D.) taught that creation was merely potential. God 
imparted to matter certain properties, and thereafter 
matter developed in accordance with the laws thus 
established. Augustine (353-430 a. p.) suggested the 
idea, now so widely accepted, that the Biblical account 
of creation is to be understood as an allegory. He 
said: ‘In the beginning God made the heaven and 
the earth, as if this were the seed of the heaven and 
the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and 
of earth was in confusion, but because it was certain 
that from this the heaven and the earth would be, 
therefore the material itself is called by that name.” 
Thus we see that Augustine brought over into Chris- 
tian theology the old heathen idea of a primitive chaos; 
but he also used language which might well accord 


Ms 


70 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


with the doctrine of a gradual development or .evolu- 
tion. 

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), one of the greatest 
philosophers of the Middle Ages, copied after the 
teachings of Augustine, and claimed that in the first 
production of plants, the grass and trees were merely 
brought forth causaliter; that is, the earth “ then re- 
ceived the power to produce them.” ‘Thus the real 
idea of a direct creation was obscured, and according 
to this philosophy the evolution doctrine might be 
reconciled with the account of creation as given in the 
first chapter of Genesis. 


Til 


With the revival of the study of natural science, 
many speculators indulged their fancies in explanation 
of the curious forms of life found as fossils in the 
rocks. Some of these early geologists supposed that 
there had been long ages of development, in which the 
earth had passed through successive changes of land 
and water. Others said that the fossils were mere 
sports of nature; and that their resemblance to modern 
animals and plants was merely a curious coincidence. 
Others, however, like Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), 
the celebrated painter, and John Woodward (1665- 
1722), the English naturalist, taught that the fossils 
represent real plants and animals which formerly lived 
on the earth. This part of the history shows how 
tenaciously the real meaning of the fossils was con- 
tested. 

Along with these speculations in geology there were 
many similar fantastic views put forth by students of 
living plants and animals. 

During the eighteenth century the natural sciences 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM ra 


became more generally studied, and the foundations 
of modern science were then laid. 

Linnaeus (1707-78) was the originator of the sys- 
tem of classification still prevailing in botany and 
zoology, and the inventor of our present system of 
binomial nomenclature for both plants and animals. 
He was an advocate of the doctrine of special creation, 
holding that all of the distinct species which we have 
to-day are similar to the kinds originally created; 
though he made allowance for new combinations of 
species which may have arisen through hybridization 
or through degeneration. He was the greatest natural- 
ist of his day, and his influence was strongly against 
any form of the evolution idea. 

Buffon (1707-88) may be called the father of the 
modern form of the evolution doctrine. He was much 
more of a speculator than a true scientist, a man 
“‘ whose genius, unballasted by an adequate knowledge 
of facts, often played him sad tricks’ (Marcus Har- 
tog). The chief idea which he contributed to the 
growing doctrine of organic evolution, was that the 
direct influence of the environment brings about a 
modification in the structure of plants and animals, 
and that these modifications of structure are passed 
along through heredity. In geology, too, his fanciful 
speculations gave rise to the doctrine of seven succes- 
sive “epochs,” in which he professed to picture not 
only the beginning and the past of our planet, but also 
its future. In view of his own fantastic speculations, 
it seems singular that he should reproach the geologists 
of his day with resembling the ancient Roman augurs 
who could not meet each other without laughing at the 
frauds which they were all in the habit of perpetrating 
upon the common people. 


72 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


Modern evolutionists, however, find many things to 
object to in Buffon’s zoology. He taught that the 
modern pig could not have been created on any com- 
plete and perfect plan originally, but must have been 
constructed as a compound from other animals, since, 
he declared, it has many useless parts. He also taught 
that ‘‘ the ass is a degenerate horse, and the ape a de- 
generate man” (Osborn). 

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) was a physician, an 
amateur naturalist, and took himself quite seriously as 
a poet. He was the grandfather of Charles Darwin, 
and undoubtedly the latter received many of his ideas 
from Erasmus, who left considerable writings which 
strongly advocated an evolutionary origin for the 
plants and animals. ‘‘ Erasmus Darwin derived the 
idea of generation rather than the creation of the 
world from David Hume” (R. H. Lock, Variation, 
Heredity and Evolution, p. 29). His theory of how 
organic evolution takes place was very similar to that 
of Lamarck, who was living contemporaneously in 
France; but it seems that the two men had no knowl- 
edge of each other. Erasmus Darwin dwelt on the 
changes brought about by thé exertions of animals in 
response to their desires and physical pains or plea- 
sures, and he taught that many of these newly acquired 
changes of structure or changes of instinct are trans- 
mitted to their descendants. By the cumulative effect 
of these changes great transformations could be 
brought about after many millions of years. Indeed, 
his own language was that these processes had been 
going on “perhaps millions of ages before the com- 
mencement of the history of mankind,” and that these 
improvements may continue to go on from generation 
to generation “ world without end.” In view of these 


° 
oe Se Or ee 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 73 


teachings, it is quite inaccurate to speak of Charles 
Darwin as having been in any sense the originator of 
the doctrine of organic evolution. 


IV. 

Lamarck (1744-1829), the French naturalist, is 
often spoken of as the founder of the complete theory 
of organic evolution in its modern form. ‘“ The stigma 
placed upon his writings by Cuvier, who greeted every 
fresh edition of his works as a nouvelle folie, and the 
disdainful allusions to him by Charles Darwin (the 
only writer of whom Darwin ever spoke in this tone) 
long placed him in the light of a purely extravagant, 
speculative thinker. Yet, as a fresh instance of the 
certainty with which men of science finally obtain 
recognition, it is gratifying to note the admiration 
which has been accorded to him in Germany by 
Haeckel and others, by his countrymen, and by a 
large school of American and English writers of the 
present day; to note, further, that his theory was 
finally taken up and defended by Charles Darwin him- 
self, and that it forms the very heart of the system of 
Herbert Spencer.” (Osborn.) 

Lamarck is usually considered the originator of the 
idea that acquired characters are transmitted to the 
next generation, and this idea is now spoken of as the 
‘¢ Lamarckian doctrine.’”’ Among the factors which he 
considered as playing an important role in the evolu- 
tion of plants and animals, were the favourable changes 
in environment, new physical wants or necessities, the 
effects of use and disuse, the effects of competition, the 
effects of cross-breeding, and the alleged fact that the 
changes induced in any of these ways are passed along 
in heredity to the next generation. 


vee 


74 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


Modern evolutionists, such as Osborn, admit that in 


his philosophical writings upon evolution Lamarck’s 


“speculations far outran his observations, and his 
theory suffered from the absurd illustrations which he 
brought forward in his support of it. . . . His critics 
spread the impression that he believed animals ac- 
quired new organs simply by wishing for them.” It 
is also admitted that his speculations in zoology were 
subject to discredit and injury “‘ by his earlier thor- 
oughly worthless speculation in chemistry and other 
branches of science’? (Osborn). In fact, he had so 
little philosophical insight that he “left wholly un- 
touched and unsolved ” many problems connected with 
the origin of adaptations. ‘‘ His arguments are, in 
most cases, not inductive, but deductive, and are fre- 
quently found not to support his law but to postulate 
it” (Osborn). In short, Lamarck did not show any 
of that careful adherence to proved facts which is 
rightly regarded as the prime characteristic of a true 
scientist. But he lived in a day when it was fashion- 
able to discredit the Christian religion, and he sought 
to give an apparent scientific foundation for this dis- 
belief. 


V 

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the foremost scien- 
tist and naturalist of his day. He was in many re- 
spects a very extraordinary man, and was not only an 
opponent of Lamarck, but of organic evolution in gen- 
eral. Indeed, his wonderful scientific attainments and 
his strong personality so dominated the scientific 
thought of his day that the ideas of evolution then 
struggling for recognition became quite discredited. 
Particularly was this the case in the controversy be- 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 75 


tween Cuvier and Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844), a 
thoroughgoing evolutionist, who defended the doctrine 
of Buffon, that the direct action of the environment is 
the real cause of evolution. This controversy came 
to a climax in the year 1830, and left Cuvier com- 
pletely master of the field; and for several decades 
thereafter the theory of organic evolution ‘“‘ sank into 
oblivion,” as August Weismann expresses it, ‘‘ and 
was expunged from the pages of science so completely 
that it seemed as if it were forever buried beyond hope 
of resurrection.” Indeed, this condition prevailed 
down until the publication of The Origin of Species, 
in 1859. 

Unfortunately, in spite of his determined opposition 
to any speculations regarding organic evolution, Baron 
Cuvier was in reality laying more securely the real 
foundation for the subsequent revival of this doctrine. 
This he did by his theories of geology. He had made 
himself familiar with the fossils found in the strata 
around Paris, and he conceived the idea that it would 
be a splendid thing to be able to trace out the chrono- 
logical relationship between the various groups of life. 

“How glorious,” he declared, “it would be if we 
could arrange the organized products of the universe 
in their chronological order, as we can already [refer- 
ring here to Werner’s onion-coats| do with the more 
important mineral substances.” 

By the year 1808 Cuvier with several assistants had 
arranged the strata around Paris in what he conceived 
to be a strict chronological order. Unconscious of the 
futility of making this little district the measure for 
the entire world, and unaware of the fact that he was 
perpetuating on the scientific world an organic onion- 
coat theory just as absurd as that taught by A. G. 


~ 


76 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


Werner, Cuvier built up an entire scheme of organic 
creation, in which he had over a dozen successive cata- 
clysms which swept over the world and piled up the 
beds of fossiliferous strata. He was a Lutheran in 
religion, and acted as superintendent of the faculty of 
Protestant theology in the University of Paris. And 
of course, in having so many successive cataclysms, 
which he said destroyed all living things on earth, he 
had to have a corresponding number of successive 
creations, in order to start the world over again each 
time. He made the flood of Noah the last of this 
series; though in this cataclysm not all of the preced- 
ing kinds of life were wholly annihilated. 

This theory of “ catastrophism,” as it is usually 
called, really laid broad and secure the foundation for 
that great superstructure of evolutionary theory which 
in our day has so captured the imagination of the 
world. It was a system of arranging the fossils from 
all of the globe in an alleged chronological order, this 
order in its general outline representing a steady ad- 
vance from the lower and less organized types of life 
to the higher and more specially organized; and the 
geologists of the subsequent hundred years have been 
chiefly employed in filling in the details of this outline. 
Lyell’s work was to smooth out the connections be- 
tween these successive events; he denied the reality of 
these successive catastrophes or cataclasms, and said 
that all of the geological changes took place by slow 
imperceptible gradations, quite in accord with the or- 
derly behaviour of nature in our modern world. And 
Darwin’s work merely put the finishing touches to the 
doctrine, by showing how the various kinds of plants 
or animals were probably transformed into other dis- 
tinctly different kinds by the similar operation of laws 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 17, 


and processes alleged to be now going on. Thus by 
the combined work of Lyell and Darwin a system of 
untformity, both inorganic and organic, replaced the 
system of catastrophism advocated by Cuvier. But 
Darwin could never have had a half dozen people to 
listen to him if Cuvier and Lyell had not acted as his 
advance agents in preparing the way for his views. 


VI 


Charles Lyell (1797-1875), by his system of uni- 
formitarian geology, was, as Huxley declared, ‘the 
chief agent in smoothing the road for Darwin. For 
consistent uniformitarianism postulates evolution as 
much in the organic as in the inorganic world” (Life 
and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 168). When Darwin as a young 
man started out on his historic voyage on the Beagle, 
he took with him a copy of Lyell’s Principles of Geol- 
ogy, then only lately published. On this trip he read 
this work with great admiration, and in publishing the 
journal of this voyage some years afterwards he dedi- 
cated it to Charles Lyell. 

The influence on Darwin’s mind of the work of 
Malthus On Population, which has often been men- 
tioned as one of the inciting causes of Darwin’s inven- 
tion of the theory of natural selection, has been much 
exaggerated. Doubtless it was an inciting cause of this 
immediate theory; but it was merely like the match 
which sets off the gunpowder, for some such theory of 
organic evolution was inevitable, in view of the system 
of geology then universally taught. i 

Charles Darwin (1809-82), after studying medicine 
at Edinburgh, matriculated at Cambridge, as a candi- 
date for the church. But he had a strong liking for 
the various branches of natural science; and when 


- 


%8 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


shortly after his graduation he was given an oppor- 
tunity to join the ship Beagle as naturalist, in a voy- 
age of exploration around the world, he accepted the 
offer. Five years were spent in this way; but it was 
not until many years after his return that he published 
his first work in advocacy of the doctrine of evolution. 

Alfred Russel Wallace (1822-1913) had read 
Lyell’s Principles of Geology, Malthus’ On Popula- 
tion, and Robert Chamber’s Vestiges of Creation, 
which had appeared in 1844. Wallace was engaged in 
collecting specimens in Borneo, when the idea of 
natural selection occurred to him one day like an intui- 
tion. He immediately wrote out a paper on the sub- 
ject and sent it to Charles Darwin in England. Dar- 
win had already been working along the same lines for 
many years, but had not published anything on the 
subject. The outcome of the matter was that a paper 
prepared by Darwin was presented along with the 
paper from Wallace before the Linnean Society on 
July 1, 1858; and in November of the next year ap- 
peared Darwin’s Origin of Species, with results which 
are familiar to every one. 

As already remarked, Darwin took for granted all 
that the geologists were then teaching regarding the 
precise order in which the various kinds of life had 
appeared on the globe. He also took for granted that 
plants and animals exhibit a constant tendency to vary 
or change, in practically all directions and to an un- 
measured or even an unlimited extent. He assumed 
also that the changes in structure or in habits brought 
about in one generation through any cause whatever 
would be faithfully transmitted to the next generation. 
But he placed the chief dependence of his theory upon 
his own personal invention, namely, the theory of selec- 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 79 


tion, both natural and sexual. The first effect of his 
Origin of Species was that it received the strong ap- 
proval of many of his contemporary scientists. In 
course of time, however, scientists became impatient 
of this doctrine of the survival of the fittest, and began 
to ask, “ What is the origin of the fittest? ” That is, 
if we may suppose that organisms fitted to their en- 
vironment are already in existence, we may well un- 
derstand that such good adaptations will naturally sur- 
vive; but how could these fittest forms originate in the 
first place? Even all the separate organs would seem 
to be similarly without explanation as to their origin; 
for until the fins of the fish, the wings of the bat, the 
legs of the quadruped, or the eyes of any creature on 
earth, were sufficiently developed to be already useful 
to their possessors, the laws of natural selection would 
tend inevitably to eliminate them instead of to per- 
petuate them. As it has been expressed by another, 
‘natural selection may explain the survival of the fit- 
test, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” 

A more complete discussion of the theory of natural 
selection will be presented in Chapter VIII of the 
present work. 

But we must remember that in the days of Charles 
Darwin the science of embryology had already made 
considerable progress, and that the “ recapitulation 
theory ” of embryology, as it is usually called, was 
already well recognized, at least in its outline form, 
long before Darwin’s Origin of Species. As it was 
taught in Darwin’s day, this theory said that the em- 
bryo of one of the higher animals, such as man, passes 
in its development through all the lower stages of the 
animal kingdom, being successively a protozoon, a mol- 
lusk, a fish, a reptile, and a mammal. Crude as such 


80 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


an idea really was, it seemed to be in accord with the 
rude knowledge of embryology then prevailing; and it 
has taken over half a century of most painstaking ob- 
servation and experiment to banish this theory to the 
limbo of discarded fancies, where the many blunders 
are preserved for the amusement of the students of the 
history of scientific speculations. 


VII 

Ji was Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), a brilliant pupil 
of the learned Cuvier, who became the most enthusi- 
astic teacher of this idea of the embryo recapitulating 
or repeating all the series of types below it in the scale. 
He used it constantly in his own forceful and enthusi- 
astic way for readjusting the classification of the living 
animals, by comparing the embryonic development of 
any particular type with the classification series ad- 
justed to fit it; he also used this method for checking 
up and rearranging in a more truly “ historical ” order 
(so he said) the various fossils found in the rocks. 
Agassiz was the first to study living and fossil fishes 
in a comprehensive way; though after his masterly 
classification of the fishes he turned his attention to 
many other departments of the animal kingdom. But 
in his classification of such animals as the fishes he 
claimed that anatomical differences alone were not suf- 
ficient to furnish a basis for a complete classification. 
More and more as he progressed in his studies he de- 
pended upon the facts of embryology “ to make good 
the deficiencies of fossil remains and to prevent the 
confusion ” which he felt would result if the classifica- 
tion were to rest upon anatomical differences alone 
(Davidson, The Recapitulation Theory, p. 10). In 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 81 


his famous Essay on Classification, issued in 1857, or 
two years before the Origin of Species, Agassiz wrote, 
“I satisfied myself long ago that embryology furnishes 
the most trustworthy standard to determine the rela- 
tive rank among animals.” 

_ Thus we see that Agassiz, with his method of com- 
paring the embryonic development with the modern 
classification series and also with the geological series, 
had laid an apparently strong and deep foundation 
upon which subsequent biologists erected the gigantic 
structure of organic evolution. Le Conte, who was a 
great admirer of Agassiz, nevertheless blames the latter 
for not going the whole road with Darwin, Huxley, and 
Spencer; and indeed one can hardly see how Agassiz 
could logically have stopped where he did. Certain it 
is that his work, in elaborating the close similarity be- 
tween the individual development of living animals, the 
geological succession (an artificial arrangement), and 
the relative rank or gradation of our living animals in 
a classification series (also an artificial arrangement), 
furnished one of the most compelling of all the argu- 
ments used by Romanes, Haeckel, and many others, as 
well as by Darwin himself, in establishing their theory 
of organic evolution. 


Vill 

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was one of the strong 
supporters of the general theory of evolution; but he 
depended chiefly upon the idea of the inheritance of 
acquired characters, the theory of Lamarck. On this 
subject he declared: ‘‘ Close contemplation of the facts 
impresses me more strongly than ever with the two 
alternatives—either there has been inheritance of ac- 


~ 


82 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


quired characters, or there has been no evolution ” 
(Contemporary Review, February-March, 1893). 

Although Spencer fought a gradually losing battle 
over this idea of the heritability of characters acquired 
through the effects of environment or of use and dis- 
use, he was one of the strongest advocates of the gen- 
eral doctrine of evolution from star mist to the mind 
of man; and it was largely because of his vigourous 
teaching of the doctrine that it gained the popularity 
among the English speaking people which it now pos- 
sesses. His theory of “ physiological units ” was prob- 
ably what suggested Darwin’s theory of “‘ pangenesis,” 
by which the latter undertook to explain how particu- 
lar kinds of units are continually being given off from 
every part of the body into the blood, thus making 
a plausible account of the mechanics of heredity,— 
though this theory has long since been discarded. But 
Spencer’s advocacy of the Neo-Lamarckian doctrine 
was strongly opposed by August Weismann, an inci- 
dent in the history of the idea which will be considered 
presently. 


IX 


Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) was a very 
keen writer, and used to call himself “‘ Darwin’s bull- 
dog;”’ while Darwin himself called Huxley “ my gen- 
eral agent.” Huxley accepted the theory of natural 
selection always with considerable reservations; and 
down even to the close of his life he insisted that Dar- 
win’s theory was not demonstrated. But he held 
strongly to the general doctrine of organic evolution, 
basing his central thought upon the supposed evidence 
of paleontology, or the science of the fossils, as indeed 
all clear thinkers have always done. 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 83 


xX 

Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was one of the first men 
in Germany to accept the suggestions of Charles Dar- 
win. He hailed Darwin’s book as an “ Anti-Genesis,”’ 
and throughout his life he was engaged in a campaign 
to spread his philosophic theory of monistic material- 
ism, and to support this theory chiefly by an appeal 
to the doctrine of organic evolution. Regarding his 
advocacy of the theory of natural selection, Professor 
H. H. Newman says that “ beyond question, Haeckel 
over-applied the theory, and in a sense weakened its 
influence by his rather uncritical use of materials ” 
(Readings, p. 30). This latter expression is rather a 
polite euphemism for what many people have called 
Haeckel’s “‘ frauds,” which raised such a storm in Ger- 
many a few years before he died. His writings have 
been translated into many languages, and the uncritical 
public suppose that they represent the orthodox scien- 
tific thought along these lines. “ Biologists to-day, 
however, are apt to look askance at Haeckel’s works 
and to consider that they did more harm than good to 
Darwinism ” (H. H. Newman, Readings, p. 30). 

As an example of Haeckel’s very “ uncritical use of 
materials,” spoken of here by Newman, may be given 
his invention of a Gastraea animal to correspond to 
the gastrula stage of the human embryo, also his in- 
vention of an animal which he termed the Coelomaea, 
which would correspond to the stage of the human em- 
bryo where the coelom or body cavity first appears. 
This feature of Haeckel’s use of the facts of embry- 
ology will be spoken of more fully in Chapter VII. 

XI 

August Weismann (1834-1914) is one of the most 

influential biologists of modern times, He undertook 


. 


84 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


to supplement Darwin’s theory with one of his own 
which has been called the theory of “‘ germinal-selec- 
tion,” which was an endeavour to picture a contest as 
going on among the carriers of heredity in the germ 
cell. It was an endeavour to support Darwin’s main 
theory of natural selection at two of its weakest points. 
‘“‘ But the supporting theory itself has the fundamental 
weakness of lacking a factual basis. It is purely 
hypothetical and cannot be put to an experimental 
test. Every time an objection to the theory was 
raised an auxiliary hypothesis was added to explain 
away the difficulty, till finally it fell to the ground 
through sheer top-heaviness, unable further to support 
its intricate structure of interrelated hypotheses.” 
(H. H. Newman, Readings in Evolution, Genetics and 
Eugenics,’ p. 31.) 

However, the thing by which Weismann is now re- 
membered is his doctrine of the continuity or apart- 
ness of the germ-plasm, sometimes called the “ germ- 
plasm theory.” Weismann showed that very early in 
the development of the embryo, sometimes from its 
first cellular divisions, certain cells are always set aside 
to act as the producers of the new germ cells at the 
maturity of the organism. Thus the germ cell is not 
the product of the body, or the soma, as it is called; 
but the body is the offshoot of the germ cells. Thus 
the body becomes merely the carrier and protector of 
the germ-plasm, the latter being essentially immortal, 
passing from one generation to the next. As Conklin 
whimsically expressed it, ‘‘ The hen does not produce 
the egg, but the egg produces the hen and also other 
eggs.” 

To quote again from Professor Newman: 


“The logical conclusion to which this line of reasoning 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 85 


leads is that the changes in the soma, no matter how pro- 
duced, are helpless to produce any effect upon the germ 
plasm, since germ cells come only from germ cells and not 
from soma cells. Consequently Weismann led the assault 
against Lamarckism and won the day so conclusively that 
even in these modern times few biologists have the temerity 
to express aloud any definite belief in the inheritance of ac- 
quired characters.” (Readings, p. 32.) 


Weismann in Germany, with E. Ray Lankester, and 
A. R. Wallace in England, may be regarded as the 
leaders of “‘ pure Darwinism,” by which is meant that 
they held to the idea that natural selection is the sole, 
or at least the chief factor in the evolutionary process. 
To-day this position is held by many biologists, though 
there are also many others who would agree with the 
statement of John Burroughs, that Darwin “has al- 
ready. been shorn of his selection theories as completely 
as Samson was shorn of his locks” (Atlantic Monthly, 
August, 1920, p. 237). 


XII 

It would not be profitable for us to enter upon a 
detailed study of the many conflicting ideas which have 
been put forward during the last few decades, in an 
effort to find some new factor with which to explain 
the evolution of organisms. Hugo de Vries, a Dutch 
botanist, has contributed the idea of ‘‘ mutations,” by 
which is meant that quite distinct variations may occur 
suddenly, these new characters being passed along in 
heredity to the next generation. These mutations are 
about what Darwin and the other students of heredity 
of a former time spoke of as “ sports;” though Dar- 
win himself did not place much dependence upon these 
“sports” as possible sources of new and permanent 
characters. The work of De Vries has been almost 


86 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


obscured by the great vogue of Mendelian inveStiga- 
tions; and whether ‘“ mutations” be considered as 
really originating something new in some mysterious 
method of origin, or whether they be regarded as 
merely the results of long latent hereditary factors 
now cropping out or released in some unknown man- 
ner, it is now quite generally admitted that there is no 
other method of heredity except the Mendelian. 

Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, or- 
iginated a method of studying variation and heredity 
by statistics, this statistical method being known as 
biometry. Karl Pearson is one of the leading expo- 
nents of this method. Biometry had a considerable 
vogue before the rise of Mendelism; since which time 
it has much declined in importance. ‘‘ On the whole 
the contributions of biometry to our understanding of 
the causes of evolution are rather disappointing. 
About the only clean-cut finding has been the discov- 
ery that some variations are continuous and others dis- 
continuous ” (Newman). As has been explained in a 
previous chapter, these continuous variations are not 
hereditary and can be plotted on a frequency curve; 
while the discontinuous variations or mutations are 
strictly hereditary and can only be plotted on fre- 
quency curves of more than one mode. 

Among the modern biologists who are outstanding 
exponents of Mendelian methods, may be mentioned 
William Bateson, Thomas Hunt Morgan, of Columbia, 
with many others. Bateson has suggested the idea 
that development has taken place through the steady 
loss of retarding or inhibiting factors. This idea that 
evolution has taken place chiefly by loss and not by 
gain, has not been received very seriously by orthodox 
evolutionists. Morgan has been engaged in studying 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 87 


the hereditary characters displayed by the fruit-fly, 
Drosophila, and has produced over 200 distinct 
types, or mutant characters, of this fly. He and his 
assistants have been the chief ones concerned in the 
study of the chromosomes and their behaviour, and it 
is to these workers that we owe the modern conception 
that these chromosomes are the actual carriers of all 
the hereditary qualities. In this way we seem to have 
hit upon the actual mechanism of heredity; though it 
is perhaps too soon to affirm that all of the actual ma- 
chinery of heredity has been discovered. 

The present anomalous situation in biology regard- 
ing these problems of heredity is well stated by Ver- 
non Kellogg in a recent article. He shows how both 
Darwinism and Lamarckism have both been discred- 
ited; and he points with fine scorn at the utter inade- 
quacy of the Darwinian explanation of specific differ- 
ences. ‘“ Indeed,” he says, “‘ most of the species dif- 
ferences—let alone the individual differences—among 
such animals as the insects and others represented by 
large numbers of species, are of a kind which require 
a very lively imagination to see differences of life- and 
death-determining value” (The New Republic, April 
11, 1923). 

After pointing out how “ mutations ” are equally in- 
adequate and unsatisfactory as explanations of how 
evolution has come about, he goes on to say: 

“This sounds discouraging for the evolutionists. 
But it really is discouraging only to the seekers after 
the causes of evolution.” 

Yes; I suppose so. Those who still maintain their 
faith in the grotesque methods of evolutionary geology, 
who are confident that plants and animals have been 
steadily appearing in a definitely ascertained order of 


“ 


88 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


succession during uncounted millions of years, will con- 
tinue to believe in organic development somehow; and 
the little detail of the failure of biology to show how 
this wonderful fact came about will not bother them 
very much. But for those who have had their eyes 
opened regarding the pseudo-scientific methods of 
evolutionary geology in arranging the fossils in an al- 
leged historical or chronological order, this utter fail- 
ure of modern biology to find a rational explanation 
of the how of the process of organic development, must 
tend to strengthen the suspicion that the biological 
sciences have for many decades been working along 
false lines entirely. 

In addition to this recognized failure of modern 
biology to confirm the doctrine of organic evolution, 
we have already seen in the previous chapter that the 
botanists almost as an entire class are complaining 
about the complete failure of geology to help out in 
supporting the theory, so far as the fossil plants are 
concerned, one leading botanist saying that phylogeny, 
or the attempt to trace out evolutionary pedigrees, “ is 
no science, but a product of fantastic speculations ” 
(J. P. Lotsy); while another says that he also has 
‘become skeptical of late as to most phylogenetic re-~ 
constructions ” (D. H. Scott). 

But the case is even worse yet. For the new de- 
velopments in geology itself have clearly shown that 
the serial arrangement of the fossils in an alleged his- 
torical order is merely a big blunder. Accordingly, 
there is little wonder that a widespread revolt is now 
taking place against the entire evolution doctrine. And 
there is little wonder that the leaders of this doctrine, 
the old guard, are getting much concerned regarding 
the scientific standing of their theory, and are trying 


FOLLOWING THE GLEAM 89 


to reassure the public that a belief in the doctrine of 
organic evolution is absolutely universal among all 
modern scientists of repute. 

The latter statement will be recognized for what it 
really is, a colossal bluff. 


XIII 

Certain it is that the deniers of organic evolution, 
who are also the believers in the New Catastrophism 
in geology, are the ones who are taking the scientifi- 
cally safe attitude. They are the ones who are now 
maintaining the magnificent tradition of a natural 
science which repudiates fantastic speculations and 
rests upon facts and facts alone. They are the ones 
who are now carrying on to maintain the spirit of non- 
dogmatic science. The evolutionary theory showed its 
true character of intolerant dogmatism under the lead- 
ership of such men as Buffon, Oken, Lamarck, and 
Haeckel; and the modern leaders of the doctrine are 
also living up to their old tradition, in the face of 
rapidly accumulating adverse facts. The latter are the 
real obscurantists, the reactionaries. The true pro/ 
gressives and the best friends of modern science ar 
the ones who are trying to hold to facts alone; but they 
can not be blamed for recognizing that the new dis- 
coveries are tending so remarkably to confirm the Bible 
record about the early days of the world. It is the 
standpatters in science who are complaining about 
these new lines of discovery, that each of these new 
revelations of the secret ways of nature is merely lead- 
ing them up a blind alley, into a cul-de-sac, to an 
impasse, and is not contributing in any way to the fur- 
ther development of the evolution theory. 


909 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Chamberlin, T. C., Seventy-five Years of American Geology; 
Science, February 8, 1924. 

Davidson, Percy E., The Recapitulation Theory; 1914. 

Geikie, Sir A., The Founders of Geology; 1901. 

Le Conte, Jos., Evolution and Religious Thought; 1899. 

Mitchell, P. C., Evolution, in Encycl. Brit.; Vol. X, pp. 22-37, 

Newman, H. H., Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eu- 
genics; 1922. 

Osborn, H. F., From the Greeks to Darwin; 1908. 

Scott, D. H., Extinct Plants and Problems of Evolution; 1924. 

Zittel, K., History of Geology and Paleontology; 1901. 


V 
SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 
I 


To who have lived amid the strikingly 
peculiar vegetation of desert regions, such as 
the southwestern part of the United States, 
will appreciate the statement that this desert flora is 
decidedly different from the vegetation of the more 
humid parts of the world. It has an individual char- 
acter all its own; and the animals also of these regions 
are almost as distinctly peculiar to these parts. The 
flora and the fauna of the desert regions of the globe, 
or even of the more arid regions, seem to belong al- 
most to a world of their own. In view of these facts 
it is surely a most interesting and a most remarkable 
fact that the fossiliferous strata do not contain any of 
these desert forms. In other words, these desert or- 
ganisms have somehow become what they are; but 
such plants and animals do not seem to have existed 
in the former age of the world’s history before the 
geological deposits were made. As it has been ex- 
pressed by D. T. Macdougal, Director of the Desert 
Laboratory for Botanical Research, at Tucson, Ari- 
zona: ‘‘ No fossil remains of desert plants have yet 
been recovered. Some of the forms which have the 
aspect of xerophytes [desert plants] must have grown 
in moist regions by reason of their method of repro- 
duction.” (Outlines of Geologic History, p. 297.) 
91 


_ 


92 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


What do these facts mean? They must mean that 
the present flora (and fauna) of the desert are the 
greatly modified descendants of other kinds of life 
which existed in the long ago. In other words, it must 
be that these modern plants and animals now found 
living in the deserts in various parts of the world have 
been produced, “‘ evolved” if the reader prefers this 
term, from other kinds of plants and animals which 
by all scientists are regarded as distinct species. It 
would seem that no other conclusion is possible. For 
we shall hardly be prepared to say that these animals 
and plants were especially created de novo, after the 
close of the great world catastrophe which the New 
Geology has revealed to us. The only other alterna-; 
tive would be to suppose that these kinds of life had. 
been in existence in the ancient world but had not left: 
any fossils in the stratified rocks. Personally I con-. 
sider the latter of these two suppositions quite as un- 
reasonable as the former. It follows from this that we 
must regard these modern kinds of plants and animals 
as having been derived by natural processes of change 
from somewhat related kinds which are nevertheless 
‘considered to be distinct species, perhaps even distinct 
genera. Whether this descent with modifications was 
accomplished by a process of development upward, or 
by a degeneration downward, will be considered later. 

It will thus be seen that we are driven to a belief in 
the origin of quite distinct ‘‘ species” by some sort of 
natural process within the period of time embraced by 
human history, for it is quite well established that the 
human race antedates the great world convulsion re- 
vealed to us by geology. 

Geological research has also very clearly proved that 
in the olden times a warm, temperate, springlike cli- 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 93 


mate prevailed over the entire globe. Not only is this 
true at one period of the past, but as A. R. Wallace 
has expressed it, throughout the whole period covered 
by the geological deposits, “‘ we find one uniform cli- 
matic aspect of the fossils.” This means that there is 
only one kind of climate known to geology proper. 

But in view of this fact there must be a great many 
kinds of animals, and some plants, found in the Arctic 
and Antarctic regions of our modern world which must 
be quite as truly the modified descendants of other 
plants and animals which lived in that mild antedilu- 
vian climate of the long ago. True, such forms as the 
reindeer, the musk ox, and the glutton may be re- 
garded as having been adapted to the high mountains 
or table-lands of that ancient world, which would 
naturally have had a climate somewhat cooler than 
the lands near the sea-level. But all the evidence 
would tend to show that these modern Arctic floras 
and faunas must be the greatly modified descendants 
of kinds of plants and animals which scientists would 
without doubt class as very distinct species. Thus we 
may say that the plants and animals of the polar lati- 
tudes teach us the same lesson as do the floras and 
faunas of the desert. Obviously, living organisms 
have undergone considerable change in passing from 
that ancient world to our modern one. 

These are extremely well-attested facts; and it be- 
hooves us to consider how such changes could have 
been brought about. And if the investigations inspired 
by Darwinism and Mendelism can help us in any way 
to solve this problem, we ought to be willing to accept 


their help in this respect. Personally I feel that a . 


residiuum of truth has been revealed by these biological 
studies in heredity and variation; because if it had not 


4 
* 
8 

% 


% 
) 
dé 


~ 


94 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


been for these studies we could not understand how 
such changes could possibly have been brought about. 


II 


The vexed question of what is a “ species,” is best 
understood by some historical facts. 

Our binomial nomenclature comes to us from Lin- 
naeus (1707-1778), who wished to include under a 
species all those organisms which owe their origin to 
some pair originally created. This was an understand- 
able idea, but of little use in systematic classification. 
However, the idea of species as distinct groups of ani- 
mals or plants which are much alike and also quite 
unlike others, has survived, in spite of the efforts of 
some scientists of a generation ago to make it appear 
that there is no such distinct and delimited group as 
a species. The efforts of the latter were quite consist- 
ent with Darwinism; but with the cloud now resting 
over the doctrines of both Darwin and Lamarck, the 
idea of species has been vindicated, and is to-day more 
firmly established than ever before. 

Linnaeus made provision in his system for the effects 
of degeneration, and also for the results of hybridiza- 
tion. With this view of the matter, he was naturally 
opposed to a very minute set of characters as consti- 
tuting the grounds for specific distinctions, he wished 
to look at plants and animals in a broad, common- 
sense fashion. For example, he included the primrose, 
the cowslip, and the true oxlip all under one species, 
making each of these mere varieties. His dictum was, 
Varietates levissimas non curat botanicus, the botanist 
ignores minute varieties. 

But the French botanist, Jordan, undertook to test 
out the permanency of various kinds of plants by 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 95 


growing them; and he found that much more minute 
distinctions than those of Linnaeus could be recognized 
and would be found to breed true to seed. This was 
all before the days of Mendelism and modern genetics; 
but this idea of physiological species, as those of Jor- 
dan have been called, has been followed by most 
botanists and zoologists ever since, with the result that 
more and more minute specific distinctions have been 
made; species have been elevated into genera, and 
genera into families, while the pleasant task of species 
mongering has gone merrily on, to the confusion of all 
but the narrowest specialists, and the despair of those 
who wish to study the great problems of organisms in 
a broad philosophic way. 

With the rise of Mendelism and the prevalence of 
experimental breeding, we now see that great multi- 
tudes of Jordanian species are only Mendelian segre- 
gates which somehow continue to maintain their sepa- 
rateness in nature. We are even beginning to suspect 
that some of the species of Linnaeus may also be of 
this character. In the field of botany, this more mod- 
ern and more liberal view of the subject is well repre- 
sented by the monumental work now being carried on 
by Harvey M. Hall and Frederic E. Clements, under 
the auspices of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. 
In zoology, I am not aware that anybody ‘has at- 
tempted a similar line of work. While of course no 
glimmer of this new light has yet filtered down among 
the paleontologists, where the absurd methods long ago 
pointed out by Zittel (History of Geology and Paleon- 
tology, pp. 375, 400) are still the order of the day. 
Bateson once gave the systematists the ironic advice 
to list and describe all the “new ”’ species which they 
could induce any reputable journal to print; but this 


~~ 


96 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


becomes a dangerous kind of joke when the species- 
mongers occupy influential positions and can get their 
lists and descriptions published at Government ex- 
pense. In the case of living plants and animals, ex- 
perimental breeding may be employed to test out the 
soundness of some of these new specific names; but 
what is the remedy in the case of the fossil trilobites, 
or brachiopods, or ammonites, when the newer books 
try ‘to restrict the generic and specific distinctions 
within the narrowest possible limits, in order to en- 
hance the value” (?) of these fossils “‘ for the char- 
acterization of stratigraphical horizons” (Zittel, p. 
400)? 

Fifty years ago Jordan recognized 200 species of 
Draba verna; while the U. S. Department of Agricul- 
ture now recognizes 250 kinds of wheat, “ all of which 
breed true,” as Hall and Clements remind us, “ and 
would thus come to be species.”” They also tell us that 
in North American botany, “ the great majority of real 
species had been described by the close of Gray’s work, 
and the vast increase. of species since that time chiefly 
represents a change of personal views as to the criteria 
that mark this unit.” For example, in the past thirty 
years, and within merely the Rocky Mountain region 
alone, the number of genera has increased from 551 to 
950; while the number of species has mounted from 
1,905 to 5,100 (The Phylogenetic Method in Taxon- 
omy, pp. 10-15; 1923). These authors are trying to 
call a halt in this mad scramble to manufacture new 
names; and declare that ‘‘ if taxonomy is to be either 
stable or usable, it must rest upon the species concept 
of Linnaeus and the practice of eminent taxonomists 
from his time to the present ” (p. 15). 

These studies carried on by Hall and Clements seem 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 97 


to be of great value in helping us to understand how 
new types of plants,—new “ species,” if you will,—are 
being produced by nature. These authors emphasize 
the fact that “direct adaptation to the habitat has 
there produced the largest number of new forms of 
plastic species. Mutation now seems less important 
than it did fifteen years ago” (p. 23). They seem to 
consider that the number of probable hybrids produced 
naturally in the field is relatively very small. “In 
spite of the changing importance of the methods of 
origin, it still appears certain that adaptation, muta- 
tion, variation, and hybridization comprise the four 
processes of evolution, though it now seems evident 
that adaptation and hybridization constitute the two 
basic modes ” (p. 23). 


III 


We may illustrate the results which have been ac- 
complished along this line with a few specific exam- 
ples. There are now in existence some 40 cr 50 species 
of cats, of the family of the Felidae, scattered through- 
out mbat all the regions of the globe: But there is 
no doubt in my mind that they have all sprung from 
acommon ancestry. There are some seven species of 
the Equidae, or horses, and they likewise are probably 
all of one common ancestry. The fact that many of 
these modern species of horse are now not cross-fertile 
with one another, does not seem to me to be of any 
scientific significance, save, perhaps, that time and de- 
generative tendencies may be the cause of this barrier 
of infertility; or this may be regarded as merely one 
of the wise provisions of nature for developing and 
maintaining that wide variety of types which it seems 
the especial glory of nature to produce. 


~ 


98 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


We may further illustrate these principles -by the 
twenty-odd species of pigs (genus Sus), which are also 
cosmopolitan in range. Flower and Lydekker, leading 
English authorities on mammals, are of the opinion 
that all of these various races of wild pigs would 
probably “ breed freely together.” For a long time 
it was considered that the various species of brown ~ 
bears of Europe and Asia, as well as the grizzly bear 
of North America, are probably only well-marked 
varieties; and recent investigations seem to make them 
all identical with the gigantic ancient bear (Ursus 
spelaeus) found in the fossil state in the Pleistocene 
deposits of the Old World; but there is no doubt in my 
mind that all of our modern species of bears must be 
of a common descent. 

If these facts and these concessions on my part are 
of any comfort to the orthodox evolutionists, they are 
welcome to make the most of them. To my mind the 
followers of Darwin and of Mendel have been merely 
preparing the way for a truer and more rational view 
of the methods by which our present floras and faunas 
have been produced. In other words, they are merely 
the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for those 
of our day who are now gaining a more accurate insight 
into that marvelous record of the origin of our present 
plants and animals which is the very quintessence of 
modern scientific discovery, discoveries which so won- 
derfully confirm the record in the Christian’s Bible. 


IV 


There has been a great deal of unthinking ridicule 
heaped upon the doctrine of “ special creation,” as it 
used to be termed. Charles Darwin, who was usually 
so polite and considerate of his opponents, always 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 99 


treated with the utmost scorn this idea of a special 
creation. Indeed, he seems never to have understood 
the real meaning of creation as a philosophical con- 
ception. As Mivart has said, “‘ None but the crudest 
conceptions are placed by him to the credit of the sup- 
porters of the dogma of creation, and it is constantly 
asserted that they, to be consistent, must offer ‘ crea- 
tive flats’ as explanations of physical phenomena, and 
be guilty of numerous other such absurdities. . 

He has the appearance of opposing ideas which he 
gives no clear evidence of having ever fully appre- 
ciated. He is far from being alone in this, and per- 
haps merely takes up and reiterates, without much con- 
sideration, assertions previously assumed by others.” 
(The Genesis of Species, pp. 28, 29.) 

As the matter stood in Darwin’s day, with the long 
succession of geological formations regarded as an ac- 
tual historical fact, and with these successive groups of 
life appearing one after another in a true historical se- 
quence, as it was then regarded, the “ special creations ” 
thus demanded would be a great many successive acts 
of creation, spread out at intervals over many millions 
of years; and there is not much wonder that Darwin 
and others regarded all this as quite unreasonable. 
But this was a mere burlesque of the true idea of a 
direct creation, as taught in the Bible. This burlesque 
of creation, this creation on the installment plan, had 
been handed down from the speculations of Buffon and 
Baron Cuvier; but our modern geological discoveries 
have put this whole idea completely out of considera- 
tion. For, as has been stated in a previous chapter, 
and as has been abundantly shown by the writings of 
the present author elsewhere, there is no possible way 
of proving in a strictly scientific manner that any of 


™ 


100 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


these sets of fossils really lived and died before others. | 
Thus in our day we no longer have to deal with a long 
succession of creations, but with one act of creation, 
which may easily be supposed to have included all of 
those ancestral types from which our modern varieties 
of plants and animals have been derived. 


V 

If now we undertake to compare this modern phase 
of the doctrine of a direct creation with either of its 
rivals, the series of creations on the installment plan, 
as taught by Cuvier, or the development of the higher 
types from the lower, as taught by Darwin and his fol- 
lowers, the doctrine of creation is seen to have very 
many arguments in its favour. 

In our day, and in the light of all that we now know 
regarding the laws of organisms, it is easier for us to 
believe in the doctrine of creation than in the theory 
of evolution. We are all familiar with the fact that 
life can come only from antecedent life; because of 
this we have to believe in the creation of the first liv- 
ing forms, or else hold to an unproved theory of the 
possibility of spontaneous generation. ‘Thus the doc- 
trine of creation is no more unreasonable than is the 
now universally accepted belief in biogenesis. For if 
we may suppose the Creator to have undertaken to 
start life at all, we may as well suppose that at this 
same general time He created full-grown specimens of 
the various distinct plants and animals with which He 
desired the world should be inhabited. For a Being 
who wished and who had the power to create the first 
speck of protoplasm (an act quite unknown to modern 
science, and thus a purely “ supernatural ” act) must 
have been capable of creating any number of kinds 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 101 


of distinct plants and animals. And the creation of 

this original stock of organic life is no more intrinsi- 

cally improbable or unreasonable than is the creation 

of that first elementary form from which Darwinists 

suppose all other subsequent forms have been derived. 
VI 

There are other classes of species which have also 
clearly been produced in some manner by the modern 
processes of nature. Such I believe are the blind fishes 
and other animals found in such localities as the Mam- 
moth Cave. When these blind fishes were first brought 
to the attention of scientists, Professor Agassiz, who 
was committed to the doctrine of the “‘ fixity ” of spe- 
cies and to the doctrine of a great many successive 
creations, took the absurd position that these blind 
fishes ‘‘ were created under the circumstances in which 
they now live, within the limits over which they now 
reign, and with the structural peculiarities which now 
characterize them.” 

But since the days of the Prophet of Penikese other 
dark caverns have been examined in various parts of 
the world, and some very remarkable facts have been 
found. 

1. Many other classes of animals besides fishes 
have been found in dark caves. 


age 


2. In all caves that are totally dark all of the ani- ! 


mals are blind. 


3. Where the animals live near enough to the en- 


trance to receive some slight degree of light, they may 
have large and lustrous eyes. 

4. In each case the blind animals found in a cave 
are closely related to species inhabiting the district 
where they occur; that is, the blind species inhabiting 


» 


~ 


1022 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


caves in America are like the. American species, while 
those found in European caves are closely similar to 
European species, and in Australia the cave animals 
resemble the Australian species. 

5. In many instances the structural remnants of 
eyes have been detected, in various degrees of obso- 
lescence. Some of the crustaceans of the Mammoth 
Cave have foot-stalks of eyes, although the eyes them- 
selves are entirely absent. (H. H. Newman.) 

In such instances as this, it seems to me quite evi- 
dent that we are dealing with changes of structure and 
of habits of life which have clearly been brought about 
by what we usually term “adaptation,” since the 
present configuration of land surface was established, 
that is, since the universal Deluge, to use the language 
of the New Catastrophism. Just as we have found 
in the case of the desert plants and animals, where the 
present species have undoubtedly arisen from some- 
what related forms in adaptation to the arid surround- 
ings, so here in these lightless, underground regions 
we have other types of life which have likewise become 
adapted to their present abnormal habitats. 

I am not sure but that many of the so-called rudi- 
mentary structures, sometimes called vestigial struc- 
tures, might very properly be explained in this way. 
The crustaceans of the Mammoth Cave which have 
merely the foot-stalks of eyes, are clearly instances of 
this sort. Whether the vestigial hind limbs of the 
python are to be explained in this way might be a mat- 
ter of question. Possibly the rudimentary wings of the 
Apteryx australis and other flightless birds may be 
explained in the same manner. The many species of 
wingless beetles on ocean islands may be explained as 
having been produced by similar adaptations. 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 103 


As to how these eyeless fishes or wingless insects or 
birds may have arisen, Thomas Hunt Morgan makes 
some remarks, based on his now famous experiments 
with the fruit fly. He has produced both eyeless and 
wingless varieties; but in all cases these mutants have 
not been produced by a gradual process, the result of 
the summation of many smaller variations, but by one 
bound. 


“Formerly,” says Morgan, “we were taught that eyeless 
animals arose in caves. This case shows that they may 
arise suddenly in glass milk bottles, by a change in a single 
factor. 

“TI may recall in this connection that wingless flies also | 
arose in our cultures by a single mutation. We used to be | 
told that wingless insects occurred on desert islands because | 
those insects that had the best developed wings had been © 
blown out to sea. Whether this is true or not, I will not . 
pretend to say; but at any rate wingless insects may also © 
arise, not through a slow process of elimination, but at a | 
single step.” (A Critique of the Theory of Evolution, p. 67.) 


From all this it is evident that profound changes in 
plants and animals have occurred since the present 
order of things was established, or since the world 
catastrophe of the Deluge. But it is equally evident 
that these changes probably did not take place by Dar- 
winian methods. More than likely the latter have had 
nothing at all to do with these changes. And instead 
of these changes of structure or of instinct requiring 
long ages for their accomplishment, they could have 
been completed very quickly. 


Vil 
And it seems to me that these facts help us to un- 
derstand some of the problems connected with the or- 
igin of the races of mankind, 


104. PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


The races of mankind greatly resemble true species. 
Indeed, in the days of Agassiz the human race was 
thought to be made up of several distinct species. The 
more prominent races, such as the negro, the Cauca- 
sian, and the Mongolian, do not differ from one an- 
other by merely one or two characters, but by many 
associated ones. Probably a dozen or more charac- 
ters could be enumerated in respect to which the negro 
differs from the white man. True, these races prove 
to be cross-fertile; but so do great numbers of natural 
species among plants and animals. In many other re- 
spects also the races of mankind greatly resemble the 
best marked Linnaean species among animals and 
plants. _ . 

On the other hand, we have no historic record of 
-how these races arose. We are just as much in the 
dark regarding their origin as we are regarding the 
origin of the common species of plants and animals 
found wild in nature. For, on the monuments of 
Egypt, recording the state of mankind at the very 
dawn of authentic history, the races of man are shown 
both by outline and by colour to have been quite as 
distinct as at the present day. Evolutionists have al- 
ways argued that long unrecorded ages must have pre- 
ceded these early Egyptian records. But in the light 
of the genetic facts revealed by Mendelism, why may 
we not suppose that the races of mankind arose sud- 
denly, in accord with the sudden (or at least rapid) 
origin of many new forms in deserts, or caves, or other 
abnormal situations? 

It is certain that very abnormal conditions must 
have prevailed immediately after the Deluge, not only 
for all the animals and plants, but also for man. The 
' plentiful supply of vegetation had been swept away, 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 105 


and the earth was a vast wilderness. The climate, too, 
must have been very different from that which for- 
merly prevailed. A warm, spring-like climate had for- 
merly been universal over the earth; now terrific ex- 
tremes of heat and cold were the rule. With nearly 
one fourth of the land surface even now forming in- 
terior basins, without outside drainage to the ocean, 
we must suppose that all of these basins were, immedi- 
ately after the Deluge, full to the brim with water. 
And it would take centuries of evaporation to make 
any material change in these conditions. The entire 
body of the water of the ocean must have been warm 
before the Deluge; but immediately thereafter a rapid 
cooling of this water set in, which, however, would still 
leave all the warm water on the surface, perhaps for 
centuries. Both of these causes must have combined 
to render the climate of all the northern lands very 
cold and damp for many centuries. Fogs and bleak 
weather must have been well-nigh continuous; the 
precipitation must have been enormous; and the ac- 
cumulating masses of snow and ice must have pushed 
rapidly down from the mountain ranges in the form 
of prodigious glaciers. In this modified sense of the 
term, the “ glacial age” is not a myth but a reality. 
But it is evident that mankind and all his companion 
animals must have found themselves amid an environ- 
ment very radically different from anything which they 
had been accustomed to before. 

And ‘we may be very sure that the great superin- 
tending Power which is over nature, adapted these 
men and these animals and plants to their strange 
world. That healing power which quickly covers over a 
wounded branch, or which rapidly restores a bleeding 
back or a broken leg, could be depended upon without 


106 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


question to set about the rapid transformation of that 
seemingly ruined world into one which, while not at 
all equal to the marvelous one before the Flood, is 
yet a very beautiful and well-ordered habitation for 
man and his companion animals. 

The believer in the Bible will also point out a moral 
and social reason for the differentiation of mankind 
into distinct races. He reads in the early record of 
the post-diluvian world that all of mankind were 
of one speech and of one race; but that design- 
ing men started to make capital out of this fact, and 
attempted to consolidate all under one rule and one 
system of worship, which evidently was an apostate 
system. The record is that God again interfered, and 
broke up the scheme, scattering the fragments of the 
race abroad upon the face of the earth. And just as 
artificial barriers of language were interposed to keep 
them from again blending into one world-embracing 
despotism, so we may well suppose that the barriers 
of race and colour were also interposed at this same 
time, these racial barriers assisting in segregating the 
people of the world off into self-contained groups, thus 
most effectually preventing them from ever again unit. 
ing. And there is no doubt that if human beings had 
always been as true to natural instincts as are the spe- 
cies among the higher animals, there never would have 
been amalgamation among these races which had thus 
been set apart from one another by a special interven- 
tion of Providence. 

This, it seems to me, is the best and most reasonable 
explanation of the origin of the races of mankind. It 
is supported by the facts of archaeology, which show 
us these races at the very dawn of history apparently 
just as distinctly marked as at present. It is also 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 107 


supported by the facts of philology; for we learn that 
there are probably fifty or more distinct groups of 
languages, so completely distinct that we cannot 
imagine how they could possibly have had a common 
origin. In both respects the Bible record of the Dis- 
persal of mankind soon after the Deluge furnishes by 
far the most believable explanation of the facts as we 
now know them through archaeology and philology. 


Vill 


It will not be necessary for us to pause here to con- 
sider the hard circumstances amid which these world- 
pioneers began to build up homes and civilizations in 
favoured localities, like the Valley of the Nile, or 
around the basin of the Mediterranean, or along the 
Euphrates. Rather must we consider briefly the char- 
acter of the changes which have been produced in man 
and the animals by their transplantation from the 
world before the Deluge into the world as we now 
know it. Has the general trend of these changes been 
upward or downward? How do the modern forms 
compare with those of the antediluvian world? Has 
there been development or degeneration? 

There can be but one answer, by any one acquainted 
with those superb, those giant forms among the larger 
mammals which were man’s brute companions before 
the world disaster, and which are still found living in 
various parts of the modern world. Whether we con- 
sider the huge Pleistocene elephants, or the lion, the 
bear, the hippopotamus, the rhinoceros, or the elk, 
found as fossils in these deposits, or whether we de- 
scend the scale of life and study the fishes, the in- 
sects, the crustaceans, the mollusks, the brachiopods, 
the birds, or the reptiles, we are constantly met with 


108 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


evidences that the fossil forms are larger and better 
shaped than their corresponding living representatives, 
if any allied families or genera are still alive in our 
modern world.* It is a uniform testimony of degen- 
eration. 

Sir William Dawson, in speaking on this point, and 
saying that degeneracy is the rule rather than the ex- 
ception, whenever we compare the fossils with the 
modern forms, goes on to declare: 

“We may alnyost say that all things left to themselves tend 
to degenerate, and only a new breathing of the Almighty 


Spirit can start them again on the path of advancement.” 
(Modern Ideas of Evolution, Appendix.) 


We have thus arrived at a philosophy of change 
among the species of plants and animals; and we find 
that there has indeed been an origin of “ species ” 
since the beginning of things. But contrary to the 
views of Darwin and his followers, the general results 
of these changes have not been of the nature of ad- 
vancement. Degeneration seems to have dogged the 
steps of every created form; the few exceptions to this 
rule having been produced by the efforts of man. 

But it is also worthy of remark that the change 
from the larger ancient forms to the smaller and more 
degenerate modern forms, seems to have come about 


1 Note.—-All of the Pleistocene mammals were larger than 
their living representatives. “Elephas antiquas, for instance, 
attained a more excessive bulk than any other proboscidian 
either before or since, the woolly rhinoceros, the great hip- 
popotamus, the cave bear, cave lion, and giant deer were all 
larger than their living representatives.” (J. A. Howe, 
Encycl. Brit., Vol. XXI, p. 836.) This fact of the larger 
size of the ancient forms, as compared with their living 
representatives (if they have any), is a universal charac- 
teristic of the fossils from the Cambrian to the Pleistocene. 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 109 
/ 


abruptly in point of time, and to have been of world- 
wide extent, the change coinciding exactly with the 
world-wide changes recorded in the rocks, by which 
the ancient world was changed into the modern one. 

We see the same general tendency toward degenera- 
tion when we consider man himself. Not, of course, 
if we let the evolutionists arrange the various skulls 
and skeletons according to their own ideas, beginning 
with Pithecanthropus and following along down past 
the Heidelberg jaw, the Piltdown skull, the Neander- 
thal skull, and the Cro-Magnards. As I have ial 
elsewhere, there is no reason whatever for arranging 
these specimens in this order (supposed to be histori- 
cal) except to make this order illustrate the precon- 
ceived theory of man’s animal origin. The reasons are 
based on the fossils and are wholly morphological; and 
as it is assumed that the lowest and most ape-like must 
have been first, these specimens from widely scattered 
localities are arranged to illustrate this idea. Does 
this arrangement prove anything? Well, nothing so 
clearly as the hypnotizing power of a preconceived 
theory. 

Is there really anything to indicate that the Nean- 
derthal man lived before those found at Cro-Magnon? 
Nothing whatever. Accordingly, while I do not admit 
that the latter are positively antediluvian, it is certain 
that they are very early postdiluvian; and in the ab- 
sence of real specimens of antediluvian man, we may 
as well consider these Cro-Magnards, and note how 
they illustrate the same general tendency to large size 
and splendid physical development which we noted on 
the part of the Pleistocene mammals. 

What sort of people were these which were found at 
Cro-Magnon, a cave near Dordogne, France? 


110 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


The old man of Cro-Magnon was over six feet tall, 
with a skull which one authority says was equal to that 
of Bismarck; while Dawson says that the skeleton 
gives evidence ‘‘ of immense muscular development.” 
This man was evidently very old; for, though every 
tooth was sound, they were very greatly worn down. 
Sir A. Keith declares that this race “‘ was the finest 
the world has ever seen,” while Macnamara says, on 
the evidence from these skeletons, that the tradition 
about there having been a race of giants in the long 
ago “was no myth.” Several of these Cro-Magnon 
men were six feet four inches high. Judged by the 
bones and skulls alone, which are absolutely the only 
criteria we have, unless we bring in also the wonder- 
ful paintings found in other localities of southern 
France, we must conclude that these Cro-Magnon 
people were away above the average men of to-day in 
both physical vigour and native mental capacity. In- 
deed, Henry Fairfield Osborn has recently declared: 
‘“‘T have every reason to believe that the Cro-Magnon 
‘cave-man’ could enter any branch of the intellectual 
life of this university [Columbia] on equal, if not on 
superior terms with any of the 30,000 students here.” 

As already remarked, these men were probably not 
antediluvian, but only very early postdiluvian. But 
they do resemble the antediluvian mammals in their 
large size and splendid development. And we can 
judge from them that the real antediluvian human 
beings must have corresponded in size and structure 
with those giants of the prime which adorn so many 
of our great museums. Such specimens as those from 
Heidelberg, Neanderthal, and Piltdown may be re- 
garded as degenerate offshoots which had separated 
from the main stock both ethnically and geographi- 


SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN 111 


cally. It is one of the burning shames of modern 

scientific investigations that grotesque speculations 

have long occupied the world under s such headings as 

professedly scientific accounts of the. Men of the Old 

Stone Age, and various other publications professing 

to deal with the subject of the antiquity of man. The 

vagaries of astrology, of phrenology, or of spiritualism, 

present no more absurdly unscientific methods than 

those which have so long prevailed in the name of 

archeological science. For there is no sufficient proof, 
that these notorious specimens just mentioned are 

really very old; there is no possible way of proving 

their relative antiquity; and furthermore there is no | 
evidence that these few stray specimens represent any- 

thing but abnormal freaks which may have been quite 

different from the majority of the types of mankind 

then prevailing. 

Thus in all these various respects we have a plain 
record of the general direction in which variation and 
change has progressed since those remote days when 
the geological animals left their remains in the strata 
of Europe and America. And it seems to me that these 
patent proofs of a general tendency to degenerate 
ought always to be borne in mind whenever we con- 
sider the changes which have certainly taken place in 
producing our present faunas and floras of such regions, 
as our deserts and our Arctic regions, which certainly © 
were not in existence before the Deluge. If such facts 
as these had always been kept in mind when studying 
these matters, there would have been less confusion in 
the conclusions based on these peculiarly modern con- 
ditions. We should see that, while the providence of 
the Creator has wisely adapted species to these strange 
and hitherto unknown conditions, the general results 


~ 


112 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


of these changes has not been in the direction of larger 
form or better structural development. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Bateson, Wm., Mendel’s Principles of Heredity; 1909. 

Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts; 
Science, January 20, 1922. 

Conklin, E. G., Heredity and Environment; 1921. 

Fairhurst, Alfred, Organic Evolution Considered; 1913. 

Hall (H. M.) and Clements (F. E.), The Phylogenetic | 

Method in Taxonomy; 1923. 
Lock, Robert Heath, Variation, Heredity and Evolution; 1920. 
Morgan, Thos. H., A Critique of the Theory of Evolution; 
1916. 


The Physical Basis of Heredity; 1919. 
The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity 
(joint author) ; Revised Edition, 1922. 
Scott, D. H., The Present Position of the Theory of Descent; 
Nature, September 29, 1921. 
Thomson, J. A., Heredity; 1919. 
Zittel, K., History of Geology and Paleontology; 1901. 


VI 
TOO MANY ANCESTORS 
i 


ROFESSOR E. W. MacBride, the eminent em- 
P bryologist of England, has given us some very 

illuminating remarks regarding the embryology 
and the classification of the various invertebrates. In 
speaking of the classification of the starfishes, he al- . 
ludes to the common custom of shaping up the classifi- 
cation largely on the theoretical assumption of just 
how the various orders have developed from simpler 
beginnings. This method of attempting to determine 
the number of orders in this group has been the cause 
of much dispute among the scientists interested in the 
study of these animals. And he goes on to remark 
that: ’ 





“The attempt to construct detailed phylogenies involves the 
assumption that one set of structures, which we take as the 
mark of the class, has remained constant, whilst others which 
are regarded as adaptive, may have been developed twice or 
thrice. As the two sets of structures are often of about 
equal importance, it will be seen to what an enormous extent 
the personal equation enters in the determination of these 
questions.” (Cambridge Natural History, Vol. I, p. 460.) 


These words bring out one of the very serious diffi- 
culties in connection with the evolution theory. They 
mean that in the attempt to trace the line of descent 
for any of the higher types of animal, such as man, it 

113 


- 


114. PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


becomes quite impossible to obtain united agreement 
among evolutionists as to the exact course of this de- 
velopment, the route along which the higher forms have 
traveled. For instance, Darwin thought that man is 
descended from some of the arboreal apes which for- 
merly existed. It is now more commonly asserted that 
he is descended from a type of ape which never lived 
in the trees. Also, in tracing his descent backwards 
“~~jnto the far distant past, Darwin had man passing 
through the bird stage, while most modern evolution- 
ists leave out this bird stage entirely, and bring man 
up directly from the reptiles. Indeed, if we trace out 
in detail any single organ of any of the leading types 
of animals, we always find ourselves confronted with 
this same difficulty. We have to decide (quite arbi- 
trarily) that we will follow chiefly one set of struc- 
tures, to the exclusion of others; that is, we have to 
assume that some one particular structure is the in- 
fallible hall-mark of the line of descent which we are 
tracing, and we have to assume that this one structure 
or set of structures has remained constant for long 
ages, while other structures which we think are not 
significant have been left behind or discarded. But 
presently we find that some very characteristic struc- 
tures or organs must, on this basis, have been devel- 
oped independently many times over, if we take the 
animals of the world as a whole; that is, they must 
have been repeatedly developed independently. And, 
as MacBride says, as the two sets of structures, the : 
ones we are following and the ones we choose to dis- | — 
regard, “are often of about equal importance, it will : 
be seen to what an enormous extent the personal equa- 
tion enters in the determination of these questions.” 
The purpose of the present chapter is a comparative 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 115 


study of the organs of various animals, and to consider 
whether the evolutionary explanation of these struc- 
tures does not involve too many absurdities to make it 
possible for us longer to tolerate such an explanation 
of their origin. 


II 


Preliminary to this study, we need to understand , 
two terms, homology and analogy, as used in biology. 7 
The fore limbs of man, of a dog, and of a bird, are 
said to be homologous, because they are said to orig- 
inate in the embryo from identical structures and to de- 
velop similarly, although in maturity they are used for 
widely different purposes, that is, they have different 
functions. But the wing of an insect, the wing of a 
bird, the wing of a bat, and the wing of a pterodactyl, 
a kind of flying reptile, are said to be analogous, but 
not homologous; because, though used in maturity for 
the same purpose, they have had a different origin and 
are even now different in structure. 

Such studies as these, in comparing the structures of 
various organisms, are embraced under the general 
term morphology, or the science of organic forms. 
And as Dr. Arthur Willey says, ‘‘ Morphology, in the 
modern sense, usually conveys a genetic meaning, im- 
plying morphogeny, or the origin of forms ” (Converg- 
ence in Evolution, p. 1). This author goes on to say 
that morphology “is the child of evolution, reared 
under the tutelage of Cuvier and Lamarck, Von Baer 
and Haeckel, Darwin and Huxley, and taken into the 
service of comparative anatomy and embryology ” 
(ibs 0)). 

Thus we are confronted with distinct evolutionary 
meanings which have been injected into the very terms 


116 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


and ideas which we are compelled to use in our discus- 
sion. And we are led to ask, How far has the “ per- 
sonal equation ” also entered into the use and the ac- 
cepted meaning of these terms? We find that we must 
at least be on our guard, if we wish to do clear and 
independent thinking. } 

If we say that the wings of a bird, of a bat, of an 
insect, and of a pterodactyl are analogous, but not 
homologous, we mean by these terms that we suppose 
that these four organs of flight have not been evolved 
from one another in any instance, but that each set has 
been evolved independently. And all this is in spite 
of the fact that the wing of the pterodactyl was a large, 
fully developed membranous wing, almost exactly like 
that of a bat; and that the former animal was doubt- 
less as expert a flyer as the latter, which we know can 
fly with all the ease of a bird. No one claims that the 
wing of the bat has developed from the wing of the 
bird, although in all four instances mentioned there 
is a very similar adaptation of the fore limbs for use 
as organs of flight. Evolutionists have to admit that 
all four kinds of wings have been developed inde- 


pendently and as it were de novo. In other words, in | 


trying to trace the evolution of the bat from its alleged 
reptilian ancestors, we have to say that the limbs have 
not remained constant, but that other structures have, 
done so; and we have to assume that wings in the in- 
stances just mentioned have developed at least three 
times, perhaps four times, quite independently of each 
other. 


Ill 


Henry Fairfield Osborn has told us that it is very 
essential-for us to distinguish between true hereditary 


\ 


: 


TOO MANY ANCESTORS 117 


resemblances and those multiple forms of adaptive re- 
semblance which are often spoken of by evolutionists 
as examples of parallelism or parallel development. 
“This wide distinction,” he says, “‘ between similarity 
of descent and similarity of adaptation applies to every 
organ, to all groups of organs, to animals as a whole, 
and to all groups of animals ” (Encycl. Brit., Vol. XX, 
p. 587). He goes on to say that analogy, or a super- 
ficial similarity, ‘in its power of transforming unlike 
and unrelated animals or unlike and unrelated parts 
of animals into likenesses, has done such miracles that 
the inference of kinship is often almost irresistible. 
During the past century it was and even now is the 
very ‘ will-o’-the-wisp ’ of evolution, always tending to 
lead the phylogenist astray.” ‘This only means that 
Professor Osborn has arbitrarily assumed that one set 
of structures, which he takes as the sure mark of a 
certain line of descent, has remained constant, while 
he regards others as merely adaptive, the latter having 
on this supposition developed independently two or 
more times. And as these two sets of structures may 
in reality, for ought that we know, be of about equal 
importance, “it will be seen to what an enormous ex- 
tent the personal equation ” enters into the theory of 
Osborn and his fellow-evolutionists, in their attempt 
to trace the evolution of the various animal forms. 

Dr. Osborn goes on to say that the shark, the ich- 
thyosaur (a kind of fish-like reptile), and the dolphin, 
a true, warm-blooded mammal, resemble each other 
very strikingly in their general appearance. They all 
look like fishes, whereas only one is a true fish, another 
was a true reptile, and the third is a true mammal; 
and it is impossible to suppose that the mammal has 
developed directly from this reptile, or the reptile from 


Me 


118 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


the fish, although they all look so very much alike. 
In this case, the internal structures of these animals 
are very different; but remarkable internal or skeletal 
transformations have also been produced, according to 
the evolutionists. ‘“‘ But the ingenuity of nature, in 
producing such adaptive transformations, is not in- 
finite,” says Osborn, “ because the same devices are 
repeatedly employed by her to accomplish the same 
adaptive ends, whether in fishes, reptiles, birds, or 
mammals; thus she has repeated herself at least 
twenty-four times in the evolution of long-snouted 
rapacious swimming types of animals” (J0., id., p. 
587). | 

We may conclude that “ the personal equation ”’ has 
entered very largely into the elaboration of such a 
scheme of evolution. 


IV. 

A good example of the warping influence of this 
‘personal equation,” or the harmful effect of a theo- 
retical bias, is shown by some remarks of George John 
Romanes in his discussion of comparative anatomy in 
his “‘ Darwin and after Darwin.” In comparing the 
fins of fishes with the legs of mammals, or the paddle 
of a whale with the hand of man, or the wing of a bird 
with the fore limb of a bat and of the pterodactyl, 
Romanes holds up to scorn the idea that the Deity has 
endeavoured to show His ingenuity by making the same 
kind of structure subserve many different functions. 
And he says that throughout the whole vegetable and 
animal kingdoms, “ All cases which can be pointed to 
as showing ingenious adaptation of some typical struc- 
ture to the performance of widely different functions— 
or cases of homology without analogy—are cases which 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 119 


come within the limits of the same natural group of 
plants and animals, and therefore admit of being 
equally well explained by descent from a common an- 
cestor; while all cases of widely divergent structures 
performing the same function—or cases of analogy 
without homology,—are to be found in different groups 
of plants or animals, and are therefore suggestive of 
independent variations arising in the different lines of 
hereditary descent.” 

We have here an example of illogical or vicious rea- 
soning which is very common to discussions of this 
class. Who is to say that the cases of homology with- 
out analogy always come within the same natural 
group of plants and animals? And why are they called 
the same “natural” group, except because of certain 
structures in which they are thought to be alike? 
What is a natural group, anyway? And why is it a 
natural group? Why is it that biologists cannot agree 
as to what is a natural group? 

For instance, Dr. Franz Baron Nopsca has recently 
published a work on reptiles (Die Familien der Rep- 
tilien, Berlin, 1923). In this he gives us a new classifi- 
cation of the reptiles, and enumerates twelve other 
classifications which have been offered since 1890, his 
being the thirteenth. A reviewer in a recent number 
of Science, says that the radical differences of opinion 
in these classifications is “ largely due to the fact that 
each author has considered a different character or 
group of characters as of importance.” ‘This reviewer 
congratulates himself on the fact that classifications in 
biology are to-day based “entirely upon genetic relation- 
ships,” a fact which some of us think may be as much 
of an evil as a good. The only point I am expressing 
here is that this mania for basing modern classifica- 


120 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


tions entirely on alleged “ genetic relationships,” does 
not tend to reassure our minds when we come to con- 
sider calmly such a question as we have propounded 
above, namely, “‘ What is a natural group of plants and 
animals?” ‘‘ Why is one grouping any more ‘ natural’ 
than another?” 

The reviewer of Dr. Nopsca’s recent book laments 
the fact that the materials at the disposal of the pale- 
ontologists are still far too limited “* to permit a selec- 
tion of the characters which reveal most accurately | 
this genetic relationship; the personal factor is still 
prominent in each suggested classification. The most 
crying need in systematic paleontology to-day is a de- 
termination of what structures are fundamental in the 
development of any phylum and the direction of their 
evolutionary changes, as opposed to the secondary 
adaptive changes.” (Science, December 21, 1923, p. 
517.) 

In the light of this discussion, if we now consider 
the argument of Romanes, we see how arbitrary it was 
for him to assume that certain groupings of animals 
are “natural” and that other groupings are not natu- 
ral. In other words, Romanes in the quotation given 
above is merely reasoning in a circle, merely begging 
the question. Theologians and philosophers have often 
been caught at such tricks of logic, but our leading 
scientists have usually been thought free from such 
rhetorical devices. Of course, it might be very unfair 
to accuse Romanes of being consciously deceptive in 
this line of argument. It would be more urbane, at 
least, on my part, to assume that he was intellectually 
honest, but that he had not eliminated the personal 
factor and did not see the vicious nature of his line of 
reasoning. However this may be, it is certain that 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 121 


Professor Romanes, in the quotation given above, has 
not made any substantial contribution to this discus- 
sion. In his case, as in that of other evolutionists, 
this whole line of argument from morphology is viti- 
ated by the fact that certain structures are always 
arbitrarily assumed to remain constant, while certain 
other structures are assumed to change with the ut- 
most ease and frequency; and accordingly when two 
identical structures are found in widely “ separated ” 
or “unrelated ” groups which nevertheless perform a 
similar function, they are treated by biologists as 
“‘ false homologies.” But other structures which are 
similarly situated but which perform different func- 
tions, are arbitrarily regarded as being analogous but 
not homologous, though having originated by adapta- 
tion through a long series of successive evolutions. 


V 


It is to the intricacies of these questions that the at- 
tention of the reader is invited in this chapter. We 
shall see that, according to the evolution theory, very 
many structures must have arisen repeatedly and quite 
independently of each other. Thus it would appear 
that any particular type of animal, such as man, an 
elephant, or a turtle, may have had its most essential 
characters often duplicated by other animals which are 
not at all related to it by descent. Or, if we should 
follow out all of the lines of descent suggested by all 
of the various structures of any particular animal, we 
should find that this animal has had far too many pos- 
sible ancestors; he literally has ancestors among the 
mollusks, or among the reptiles, or among the fishes; 
and this multiplication of possible lines of genetic + 
descent seems to me one of the most serious objections 


122 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


to the whole scheme of organic evolution as commonly 
understood. At least, as it seems to me, these facts 
completely and conclusively demolish the argument 
which has so long been based upon morphology or 
comparative anatomy. I do not believe that the reader 
who will calmly consider the evidence now available 
will regard this argument from morphology as of any 
possible scientific value. It would be just as sensible 
to assume that a wheelbarrow developed into a bicycle, 
that the bicycle evolved into a tricycle, the latter be- 
coming transformed into a buggy, and again into an 
automobile, and lastly into a sixteen-wheeled locomo- 
tive, as to believe that the structures of comparative 
anatomy prove anything at all regarding the genetic 
history of the higher animals. 


vi 


In further elaboration of this idea, that certain struc- 
tures are arbitrarily assumed to have remained con- 
stant, while other structures are assumed to have 
varied or to have originated independently two or 
more times, we have the following also from H. F. 
Osborn: 


“From comparative anatomy alone it is possible to arrange 
a series of living forms which, although structurally a con- 
vincing array because placed in a graded series, may be, 
nevertheless, in an order inverse to that of the actual his- 
torical succession. The most marked case of such inversion 
in comparative anatomy is that of Carl Gegenbauer (1826- 
1903), who in arranging the fins of fishes in support of his 
theory that the fin of the Australian lung-fish (Ceratodus) 
was the most primitive (or archipterygium), placed as the 
primordial type a fin which paleontology has proved to be one 
of the latest types if not the last.” (Encycl. Brit., Vol. XX, 
p. 586.) 


EE 


TOO MANY ANCESTORS 123 


But I wonder why Dr. Osborn never thought of 
these facts and principles when he permitted his col- 
leagues to arrange the various fossil ‘“ horses”? and 
other animals which are on exhibit to illustrate evolu- 
tion in the great Museum in New York City of which 
he is the President. Here we have several series of 
skeletons and parts of skeletons, each of which, “ al- 
though structurally a convincing array because placed 
in a graded series,”’ may not in reality represent an his- 
torical order at all, and hence may be nothing better 
than child’s play, so far as illustrating evolution is con- 
cerned. In the light of the newer discoveries in geol- 
ogy, who is to guarantee that the series of fossil horses, 
or camels, or elephants, as shown in that Museum, 
represent true historical sequences, or any historical 
sequence at all, for that matter? Because all of these 
fossil horses may have lived contemporaneously; and 
the same is true also of the elephants and the camels. 
When placed in the “ graded series,’”’ as there shown, 
they may from comparative anatomy alone appear to 
be structurally a very “‘ convincing array ”’ for the de- 
ceiving of school children, who visit this Museum at 
the rate of nearly a million annually; but who that 
thinks clearly can be otherwise than amused at such 
unscientific methods of “ proving” a pet theory? 


Vil 


In the early days of this controversy, St. George 
Mivart, the accomplished biologist of London, devoted 
a chapter of his Genesis of Species, to “ the co-exist- 
ence of closely similar structures of diverse origin.” 
This chapter covers over thirty pages, and in it Pro- 
fessor Mivart gives many striking examples of similar 
structures which must have had an entirely indepen- 


124 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


dent origin. He does not think that these examples 
tell against the general theory of evolution, providing 
we may suppose the latter process to have been super- 
intended and directed by a creative Intelligence; but 
he argues that it is quite improbable and practically 
impossible ‘‘ for two exactly similar structures to have 
ever been independently developed ” by the action of 
natural selection alone. But it seems to me that these 
facts do make quite improbable and incredible the en- 
tire theory of organic evolution. I will concede that a 
directing Intelligence could have produced all the great 
variety of organic forms by such a process of organic 
development; but I utterly refuse to consider this as 
a probable explanation of their origin. It demands 
too much credulity on our part to believe such a 
theory. It is far easier to believe in the direct crea- 
tion of all the leading types (e. g., the families), as 
explained elsewhere, though allowing for many minor 
variations under each of these larger groups. 

One of the striking examples given by Mivart is the 
thylacine, or so-called Tasmanian wolf, which is so 
strikingly like a wolf or a dog in general appearance 
that at a distance the two cannot be distinguished. 
The thylacine is confined to the island of Tasmania; 
but it is a marsupial and not a placental mammal at 
all. How did nature come to make such a parody of 
the wolf, if we suppose that both of these animals have 
been independently evolved from some remote common 
ancestral type? 

Among the marsupials, or pouched animals, there 
are carnivorous, insectivorous and herbivorous types 
which correspond not only in habits but also in many 
,structural features to the similar carnivorous, insectiv- 
orous, and herbivorous mammals. Professor Huxley 


TOO MANY ANCESTORS 125 


about 1866 proposed the theory that the placental 
mammals of these various groups must have been 
evolved directly from the corresponding marsupials. 
However, this theory has not been accepted by other 
evolutionists. 

There are many points of similarity between the rep- 
tiles and the birds; the pterodactyls or flying reptiles, 
as already pointed out, have certain structures resem- 
bling those of carinate or flying birds; while the 
dinosaurs were structurally somewhat similar to the 
struthious or flightless birds. And Mivart declares, 
“either birds must have had two distinct origins 
whence they grew to their present uniformity, or the 
very same skeletal, and probably cerebral characters, 
must have spontaneously and independently arisen ” 
(The Genesis of Species, p. 85). 

Professor Mivart goes on to show that the cuttle- 
fishes, a group of mollusks, have elaborately con- 
structed ears which serve the creatures as auditory or- 
gans, and which closely resemble in structure the sim- 
ilar organs found in the higher land animals. But as 
no one could possibly imagine that the higher verte- 
brates were derived by descent from these cuttle-fishes, 
we are driven to the conclusion that these highly com- 
plex organs of hearing must have been developed “in 
entire and complete independence of each other.” 

Charles Darwin is reported to have declared that the 
thought of the origin of the eye always gave him a cold 
shiver whenever he thought of the length of time in- 
volved in the production of such an organ. Now there 
are several distinct types of eyes in the animal king- 
dom. ‘The eye of an insect is certainly a very efficient 
organ of sight; though it is constructed on a plan radi- 
cally different from that of the vertebrates. But what 


126 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


is our surprise on finding in the cuttle-fishes an eye 
which is constructed on precisely the same general plan 
as that found in the vertebrates. In the eye of the 
cuttle-fish we find a true retina, a sclerotic, a choroid, 
a vitreous humour, an aqueous humour, and an ad- 
justable lens, just as we find in the eye of one of the 
higher vertebrates. As Mivart says, ‘‘ the correspon- 
dence is wonderfully complete;’’ and he argues that for 
such an exact, elaborate, and highly complicated series 
of similar structures to have been brought about in two 
independent instances by the hit-and-miss methods of 
minute chance variations, “is an improbability which 
amounts practically to impossibility.” And I quite 
agree with him. Only I would go further and say that 
it seems absurd to suppose that two such parallel de- 
velopments could ever have gone on without supposing 
more of the miraculous in the process of organic evolu- 
tion than most of the advocates of this theory are in- 
clined to admit. 

If we were to enumerate the many instances where 
eyes are found which must have been developed quite 
independently, the list would be a long one. We may 
mention but one more, that of the pecten, a bivalve 
mollusk. This creature has a row of large and promi- 
nent eyes situated along the two edges of the mantle. 
Each of these eyes has an optic nerve, a cornea, a lens, 
and a choroidea, making it strikingly resemble the eye 
of a vertebrate. But it is evident that, if the evolu- 
tion theory be true, this little mollusk must have 
evolved these wonderful structures quite independently 
of any similar structure in any other animal, even in- 
dependent of the eye of the cuttle-fish. 

The placental method of reproduction, by which the 
blood of the developing foetus is placed in intimate and 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 127 


nutritive relation with the blood of the mother, is an- 
other very remarkable structure which is found in cer- 
tain sharks, as well as in the true mammals. No trace 
of such a structure exists in any reptile or bird; and 
it is preposterous to think that the mammals have de- 
scended (or ascended) from the sharks. Thus this 
highly complicated structure must have arisen quite 
independently in these two instances; and one is ata 
loss to understand how any such structure could pos- 
sibly have developed by any process of slow, imper- 
ceptible variations, in accord with the evolution theory. 
But strange to say this very same structure is found 
also in certain ascidians, often called tunicates or sea- 
squirts. Now it will not help matters to suppose that 
these ascidians were the common ancestors of both the 
sharks and the higher mammals, for in the sharks the 
placenta is developed from the umbilical vesicle, while 
in the mammals it is developed from the allantois, a 
very different foetal structure. Moreover, it is quite 
out of the question for evolutionists to put the sharks 
in the direct line between the ascidians and the mam- 
mals. Accordingly, we are driven to the conclusion 
that the placental method of reproduction must have 
been developed in all three of these instances quite 
independently. 

Mr. Mivart goes on to enumerate many other ex- 
amples of this kind, for such parallelisms of structure 
appear throughout the whole of the animal kingdom. 
It would take an entire volume to enumerate all of 
such instances. Mivart only argues that the chance 
variations of Darwin are quite insufficient to account 
for such parallel structures. To my notion the argu- 
ment is even stronger yet. It seems to me that these 
parallel structures in widely separated forms of life 


~*~ 


128 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


show that the whole theory of organic evolution, as 
commonly understood, is working along a wrong line 
entirely. 

Our studies of both plants and animals have im- 
pressed us very strongly with the facts of heredity. 
We see a certain shape and colour in a cow, and we 
see the same shape and colour appear in her offspring. 
We have certain points in a dog which we wish to ac- 
centuate, and we carefully select its mate and have full 
confidence that we can produce by breeding the type 
which we desire. Here we see certain structures fol- 
low according to invariable law a line of heredity which 
we can demonstrate. And we are prone to think that 
similar structures in two distantly classified animals 
must somehow represent a common inheritance from 
some remote ancestor. But the facts which we have 
presented in the previous pages show that this is not 
always a true method of reasoning. If we follow out 
this rule, we shall get into serious trouble. We shall 
find that practically every single genus among the ani- 
mal kingdom would, on this basis, seem to have far too 
many ancestors. A method of comparison which would 
lead us to say that the mammals were derived from 
the sharks or the sea-squirts, because of the placental 
structures common to all three, would also drive us to 
the conclusion that the modern mammals are de- 
scended from the cephalopod cuttle-fishes, because of 
the eyes and ears common to these two remote groups. 


Vill 
Thus, as our method of reasoning has led us into a 
palpable absurdity, we must retrace our steps and see 


where we are. 
The lesson from all this is that we have in the ani- 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 129 


mal kingdom a vast web of life, constructed on an 
elaborate plan of complicated similarities and dissimi- 
larities, with such a profusion of individual types that 
it would seem to be impossible not to have many in- 
stances of similar or even identical structures in forms 
which are nevertheless widely removed from each other 
when considered on any rational basis of classification. 

But if we wish to think clearly, we must constantly 
bear in mind the fact that our zoological and botanical 
classifications are very largely artificial, and within 
modern times have been rearranged repeatedly with 
the avowed purpose of making these classifications 
conform more closely with evolutionary theory. The 
classification of species into genera, and of genera into 
families, may be admitted to be quite natural and not 
artificial; though as we ascend to the families we find 
less agreement among systematists. When, however, 
we rise above the families, the classification of both 
plants and animals becomes more and more a matter 
of recording and illustrating evolutionary theories of 
supposed origins. That is, taxonomy becomes merely 
the servant of evolutionary phylogeny; and accord- 
ingly we must always be on the lookout for the evolu- 
tionary bias which surely lies embalmed in every sys- 
tem of classifying the families, orders, classes and 
phyla. 

We may conclude that “ descent with modification ” 
will explain the origin of most of our species and i 
genera, as descendants of some primal representatives / 
of the families; but when we undertake to explain in j 
this way the relationships between the orders and. 
classes and phyla, we get into a field of sheer specula-' 
tion, where a man has to shut his eyes to reason and_ 
common sense and go it blind. 


~~ 


130 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


In the days of Charles Darwin, it was supposed that 
geology had demonstrated that certain types of life 
actually lived and died long ages before others, and 
that the relative order in which the great types of life 
had come into existence on the globe had been estab- 
lished by proved facts. But we now know that this 
is all a blunder, and that the reptiles and amphibians 
cannot be proved to have lived long ages before the 
mammals, nor can it be proved that the various mar- 
supials and “ generalized ” mammals actually lived be- 
fore the higher mammals. Our misplaced confidence 
in the theories of the geologists and paleontologists, has 
made it seem that we had a long but well-defined out- 
line of successive animals and plants, on which we 
have for nearly a century been trying to construct a 
detailed scheme of organic evolution. But with the 
collapse of the logic on which this geological series 
rests, we begin to see that a thoroughgoing scheme of 
organic evolution could never be made to work, even 
if this series of the fossils had been an actual historical 
series, instead of the purely artificial series which we 
know it really is. 

We have learned many things about environment 
and heredity. We have learned quite a little about 
‘how plants and animals vary, and can imagine that at 
/some time in the long ago “ species ” may have been 
“even more plastic than at present. This will account 

for much of the great complexity which we see around 
us in our modern world. But to go beyond this, and 
‘to attempt to say that all our animals and plants have 
arisen from one original stock, or from two or three 
original stocks, taxes our credulity more than do the 
tales of Alice in Wonderland or those of the Arabian 
Nights. A belief in a real creation of a vast number 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 131 


of ancestral types from which the modern forms have 
descended by methods more or less known to us 
through the laws of heredity and variation, is far more 
reasonable than is the theory of organic evolution. 

It would be tiresome to go through merely the many 
remarkable ways in which the marsupials resemble the 
mammals, though if evolution be true each of these 
similar kinds must have been produced independently 
among the two groups. Dr. Arthur Willey gives a 
diagram showing the parallel types, six in number, 
which are alike in the two classes, (1) the carnivorous, 
(2) the ant-eating, (3) the flying, (4) the swimming, 
(5) the large-eyed burrowing forms, and (6) the small- 
eyed burrowing forms. And he says that a similar 
diagram could be constructed to show the parallel 
series among the Insectivora and the Rodentia. It 
seems preposterous to tell us that in all these scores 
or hundreds of instances of striking outward resem- 
blance, or of resemblance in habits and in internal 
structure, we are merely witnessing examples of par- 
allel but quite independent evolution. 

I do not believe a word of it. If these hundreds of 
mimics of one another have been produced by inde- 
pendent evolution, one is obliged to think that evolu- 
tion can be invoked to account for anything. Perhaps, 
however, it would be more accurate to say that these 
many similar structures where genetic relationship is 
out of the question, tend to show that homology 1s 
worthless as a proof of genetic relationship. 


IX 
Let us take some other examples. A distinguished 
French zoologist of the last century declared that the 
ascidians (Tunicata) must be related to the mollusks. 


132 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


In confirmation of this theory he discovered a species 
of Molgula, a simple ascidian, which undergoes direct 
development without the intervention of a tailed larva, 
such as most ascidians have. Presently he discovered 
another ascidian in the Mediterranean (which had al- 
ready been found in the Pacific) which has a distinctly 
hinged valve which can be opened and closed exactly 
like the valves of such a mollusk as the oyster or clam. 
But the evolutionists have continued to deny that these 
structures are anything more than some of nature’s 
morphological tricks calculated to deceive the unskill- 
ful. And they resolutely declare that the ascidians, so 
far from being related to the mollusks, are really de- 
generate vertebrates. Verily the ways of morpholo- 
gists are past finding out. 

We have already mentioned various instances where 
organs of flight are found on animals widely unrelated 
to each other, structures which must have been inde- 
pendently evolved, if they have been evolved at all. 
Willey mentions two other very striking examples of 
this sort, the Exocoetus, or flying herring, a true tele- 
ost fish, which is strikingly like the flying gurnard, 
though the latter belongs to an entirely different 
family. ‘ Both of these genera occur in the Mediter- 
ranean as well as in the Indian Ocean, and are totally 
different from each other, not only in systematic posi- 
tion but in external forms.” But though thus dissimi- 
lar in a general way, each has the same elongation and 
expansion of the pectoral fins which enable the animal 
to use this organ as a parachute, which, as Willey says, 
is a very exceptional modification “‘ which has been ac- 
quired independently within the limits of two very dis- 
tinct families.” And he adds that it is indeed “ re- 
markable to find such strictly homologous organs as 





ee 


ei el 


TOO MANY ANCESTORS 133 


the pectoral fins of Teleostean fishes modified in a vir- 
tually identical manner to perform a special and excep- 
tional function, whose transformation is nevertheless 
not homogenetic but homoplastic ” (op. cit., p. 89). . 
These last two terms mean that this structure is alike 
in appearance but unlike in origin. We have already 
seen that such terms embalm too much evolutionary 
theory. | 
Charles Darwin devoted considerable attention to 
the electric organs of fishes, and said that “it is im- 
possible to conceive by what steps these wondrous or- 
gans have been produced.”’ He admitted that in sev- 
eral instances these organs cannot be supposed to have 
had a common origin. In some species these electric 
organs are in the head, while in others they are situ- 
ated in the tail; and it is thus quite evident that they 
could not have had a common origin. Romanes tried 
to account for these organs in the rays, but confessed 
that the difficulty of accounting for them was so great 
“that if there were many other cases of the like kind 
to be met with in nature, I should myself at once allow 
that the theory of natural selection would have to be 
discarded.” In this he recognized that the difficulty 
is vastly increased by the fact that these organs have 
had several independent origins. Not only do we find 
these organs in the well-known genus Torpedo, belong- 
ing to the rays or skates, but also in the electric eel 
of South America and the astonishing electric catfish 
of the rivers of Africa, the latter of which grows to a 
length of three feet. In the latter animal the electrical 
apparatus “differs absolutely from that of all other 
fishes, being derived from the integument, belonging 
to the glandular system, and surrounding the whole 
body with a thick coat of grease or gelatinous sub- 


134 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


stance” (T. W. Bridge). This latter fish is called raad 
by the Arabs, the name meaning thunder, a tribute to 
the very powerful shock which this fish can generate. 
And in all of these three instances the difficulty of ac- 
counting for the electric equipment is greatly increased 
by the fact that ‘‘in each case, as pointed out by Dr. 
D. 8. Jordan, closely related species show no trace of 
the electric endowment ” (Arthur Willey). 

Of course, in these instances as in all other similar 
lines, the greatest difficulty is in trying to imagine how 
these structures could have had their first minute use- 
less beginnings. For it seems to be an insuperable 
difficulty for the theory of natural selection that these 
organs had to be preserved for a long time in their 
rudimentary stages when they were absolutely useless. 
It would seem that natural selection ought to have 
eliminated these useless structures almost as soon as 
they appeared, thus allowing them no chance to be- 
come functional and useful. But this problem only 
becomes greater when we are driven to say that very 
similar useless structures have originated time and time 
again, and also have repeatedly persisted through the 
rudimentary or useless stage until they became useful 
to the organism. 

The origin of the placenta and its many related and 
complicated structures presents a very great problem 
for the evolutionist to solve. The special difficulties 
connected with this problem are of a technical nature 
and need not concern us here. But it is worthy of 
note that a true allantoic placenta is found in the ban- 
dicoots of Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea. 
This makes it necessary for the evolutionist to say, 
either that the marsupials have descended from a stock 
which already had an allantoic placenta, all but the 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 135 


bandicoots having subsequently lost this structure, or 
to say that this structure has had an independent de- 
velopment among the two widely separated groups of 
the mammalia. Neither horn of this dilemma presents 
a very encouraging problem for the evolutionist. 

The problem of the origin of the organs among the 
higher vertebrates which secrete milk for the young, 
presents difficulties of its own, for here we have a 
structure indispensable to the plan of mammalian life, 
but not rationally and structurally connected with the 
viviparous method of generation. That is, there does 
not seem to be any anatomical or structural relation- 
ship between the mammae and the production of the 
young in a uterus; and yet either of these structures 
would be absolutely useless without the other. 

But the secretion of milk has an interest all its own, 
independent of its connection with the placental 
method of reproduction. It has been pointed out that 
pigeons, during the breeding season, secrete a large 
quantity of a milky fluid in their crops, this fluid being 
of a grey colour and forming a curd by coagulation 
with acids. This “ pigeon’s milk,” as it is called, is 
mixed with food in the crop and is fed to the young by 
regurditation, being of a very nutritious character and 
well adapted to the nourishment of the young birds. 

But one is astonished at finding a somewhat analo- 
gous secretion in the uterus of viviparous rays. In at 
least three distinct genera, the sting-rays, the eagle- 
rays, and the bat-rays, the young are nourished before 
birth by a milky secretion which is produced by gland- 
ular structures on the inner surface of the uterine wall, 
a funnel-like structure carrying this milk into the 
pharynx or throat of the embryo fish. Not only isa 
structure provided to guide the milk into the throat 


136 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION» 


of the young embryo, but muscles in the wall of the 
uterus by their contraction squeeze the milk out. This 
production of milk on the part of these fishes is with- 
out doubt a most remarkable parallel to the cor- 
responding phenomena in mammals, even though the 
structures producing it are in great contrast with the 
mammalian structures. But how any or all of these 
structures could have originated by natural selection 
or by any other method of evolution, quite passes my 
powers of imagination. 

“Every system of organs throughout the animal 
kingdom will be found to yield abundant instances of 
convergence,” or examples of structures quite inde- 
pendently evolved, as Willey declares. He further 
tells us that the degrees of convergence are endless and 
constitute ‘‘a dominant factor in morphology” (pp. 
91,107,130). ‘‘ The influence of convergence in evo- 
lution has been wide-spread, deep-seated, and intimate, 
more so than is generally recognized. What may ap- 
pear to be a brilliant discovery of morphological af- 
finity may in reality be an equally brilliant demonstra- 
tion of the no less important and interesting phenome- 
non of morphological convergence” (pp. 168, 169). 
And this illustrious author, whose work on convergence 
is an encyclopedia of examples along this line, closes 
with the significant statement that these examples tend 
to break down all the former land-marks of homology, 
and that “ hardly one universal criterion of strict ho- 
mology can be mentioned which would pass muster in a 
critical examination” (p. 170). 


xX 


Among the wealth of illustrations which might be 
presented here, we can select only a few more. All of 


L 
\ 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 137 


the higher animals have, of course, special organs for 
the digestion of the food. But while we are not sur- 
prised at the presence of a stomach in all of them, we 
are naturally surprised at finding in addition such a 
peculiar and specialized organ as a gizzard in such 
widely different animals as birds, crocodiles, ant-eaters, 
and several kinds of fishes. The ancient dinosaurs 
also seem to have had gizzards, what have been identi- 
fied as gizzard stones having been found within the 
skeleton in a few instances. Of course, the toothless 
ant-eaters would naturally need a gizzard to grind up 
their food, quite as much so as toothless birds. But 
in the case of the fishes we have an almost identical 
structure in several widely separated families, such as 
the grey mullet, the red mullet, the so-called gillaroo 
or “ gizzard trout,” and the “ gizzard shad.” Willey 
gives a comparison between these structures in the mul- 
let and the shad, and adds, 


“Here, then, we have two fishes belonging to widely 
separated families, though pursuing similar habits, and pre- 
senting independently an identical modification of the pyloric 
division of the stomach. I confess that at first acquaintance 
with this case I began to distrust my own eyes” (p. 110). 


He goes on to say that these shads and mullets, so 
widely different in other respects, have also adipose or 
fatty eyelids in common, as well as pyloric gizzards. 
And he adds, 


“Tn both of these cases, as well as in that of the pectoral 
fins of the flying fishes, we Have anatomically identical struc- 
tures arising independently from a common origin. Facts of 
this nature apparently take the ground away from any in- 
telligible conception of homology—but only apparently” (p. 
111). 


138 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


However, I take it that these last three words, “ but 
only apparently,’ are merely a gesture of protest 
against the profound doubt of the whole evolution 
theory which is naturally inspired by such a destruc- 
tion of all the laws of homology. This author still 
maintains his belief in the general doctrine of organic 
evolution, although such facts certainly seem to re- 
move all scientific basis for regarding homology as of 
any evidential value in favour of this general doctrine. 

The mechanism of breathing would offer us many 
instructive comparisons. For example, the presence of 
almost identical breathing organs, or tracheae, in the 


insects and the arachnids, led scientists for many years. 


to class these groups together under the general name 
of Tracheata, in contradistinction to the aquatic arthro- 
pods which were called Branchiata. But within mod- 
ern times it has been declared that the insects and 
arachnids are very widely apart; and thus that their 
similar breathing organs, or tracheae, must have had 
separate origins. Accordingly these similar organs are 
now said to be different, from the standpoint of mor- 
phology, and not at all truly homologous, though they 
are identically similar both in their histologic struc- 
ture and in their physiologic functions. Even among 
the arachnoids we are told that the tracheae “ have 
had at least a twofold origin, namely, from lung-books 
and from ectodermal tendons” (Willey). Thus we 
are compelled by the theory of evolution to say that 
‘‘ similarity of structure in the fully developed tracheae 
does not mean similarity of origin ” (Purcell). 

Willey says that tracheal tubes have replaced lung- 
books ‘‘ at least twice,” in the two-lunged spiders and 
in the “ false scorpions;” also in the land operculates, 
or mollusks with an operculum, and in the Pulmonata, 


a 


TOO MANY ANCESTORS 139 


or mollusks without an operculum, as Helix and Pupa, 

which belong to an entirely different order. This 
makes essentially four times that these very similar 
breathing organs have been developed independently 
among these invertebrates, if we are to believe the 
evolution theory. 

If we descend to the histology or the study of the 
cellular structure of some of the lower animals, we find 
some very interesting comparisons. A few years ago 
the theory was propounded that an identity of histo- 
logic or cellular structure might be considered proof of 
identity of origin. But there are very many instances 
where this will not hold good. For instance, in certain 
annelid worms we find a certain type of kidneys, or 
nephridia, constructed of characteristic ‘ flame-cells,” 
so-called; while in the amphioxus we have nephridia or 
kidneys composed of the very same kind of cells. E.S. 
Goodrich, who made this discovery, argued for a com- 
mon ancestry for these widely separated creatures, and 
said that if these similar structures “‘ could be shown 
to have been independently evolved, we should have to 
give up structural resemblance as a guide to homol- 
ogy.” But Willey contends that these structures have 
certainly been independenily evolved, and says that 
these are only examples of histogenetic convergence, 
or independent development of an identical cellular 
structure. 

Willey gives other examples of a similar nature, and 
says that it would “be possible to multiply examples 
of histological parallelism to an almost unlimited ex- 
tent” (p. 166). He shows that this parallelism in cel- 
lular structure, in widely separated animals that can- 
not be spoken of as having had a common origin, is 
only similar to that convergence or parallelism of or- 


140 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


gans in widely separated animals which likewise can- 
not have been of a common descent. He admits that 
“most morphological arguments work both ways;” 
and on another page he says that a comparison of this 
sort, perhaps, no matter which structure we compare 
with the other, “ leads round in a vicious circle to the 
same goal, namely, the point from which we started ” 
(p. 114). He further admits that “it is a very good 
thing to have a guiding idea in morphology and to fol- 
low it out, but at the best it can lead only to a sub- 
jective conclusion” (p. 165). I agree fully. 


XI 


Having thus seen that almost innumerable examples 
could be given of organs, tissues, and cellular struc- 
tures in widely separated animals where these forms 
could not possibly have had a common origin, we begin 
to see that morphology is of very little value in proving 
genetic relationships. But we may proceed to study 
the instincts and habits of animals, and we shall see 
the same rule applying here. 

For example, there is a very remarkable similarity 
in the habits and instincts of the various social insects, 
such as the termites, the ants, the bees, and the wasps. 
The termites resemble ants so closely in their mode of 
life and in their social organization that in the tropical 
countries they are usually known as white ants, though, 
as Willey says, “‘ they are not ants and are not always 
white.” The reader is probably familiar with the three 
kinds of bees which live together in the same hive or 
colony, namely, the queen, the workers, and the drones. 
Among many of the ants there are several other or 
different classes or castes. While among the termites, 
as a recent writer has worked it out, there are several 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 141 


dozen distinct orders or castes. The termites do not 
keep slaves, or milk-producing insects, as do some of 
the ants, but the social differentiation into workers, 
soldiers, kings, and queens is the same among the ter- 
mites as among the ants. The termites also keep cer- 
tain other insects in their homes as “ guests,”? which 
often resemble their hosts in outward appearance to a. 
very remarkable degree. Some of these “ guests ” thus 
entertained among both the ants and the termites are 
harmless or even friendly; while others are distinctly 
harmful, and feed upon their unsuspecting hosts when 
the latter are caught off guard. 

The many lessons to be learned from the instincts 
of these social insects are too numerous to be men- 
tioned here. The fact that the working bees are al- 
ways descended from a queen mother who never gath- 
ered a drop of honey in her life and from a lazy drone 
that hangs around the hive as a “‘ cake-eater,” without 
ever doing a tap of useful work, is proof enough that 
in this case at least the effects of use and disuse are 
not transmitted to the offspring. How does the young 
worker bee know from the beginning what to do and 
how to do it, in the way of gathering honey, making 
comb, and the hundred other duties connected with 
the life of the hive? These workers have peculiar 
structures on their legs, often called “ baskets,” for 
carrying pollen. Several other structures might be 
mentioned which are peculiar to the workers. Thus 
there are both structures and instincts which are 
strictly confined to the worker, not being found in 
either the queen mother or the drone father; hence the 
worker’s ancestors never had them. It is impossible 
to imagine how these structures or these instincts could 
have been built up by inheritance from the long line 


~ 


142 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


of queens and drones which are this worker’s ancestors, 
for these ancestors never possessed them. WHence these 
structures and instincts cannot be called “ hereditary ” 
except by an accommodated use of the word; and I 
can see no possible way by which these peculiarities in 
the worker can be accounted for on any theory of 
evolution. 

But essentially the same difficulty confronts us in 
the cases of the wasps, the ants, and the termites. 
Certain castes among all of these social insects have 
very striking peculiarities of structure and of instincts 
which are confined to these castes and which the 
fathers and mothers have never possessed. And if the 
evolution theory be true, these four groups of the so- 
cial insects must have developed each quite inde- 
pendently this most astonishing propensity of having 
certain castes or classes among them which seem to 
violate all the laws of heredity, by showing structures 
and instincts which are never found in the direct line 
of the ancestry. I do not believe it. 

In still another way we are confronted with an in- 
superable difficulty in explaining the instincts among 
these social colonies. For it is not one instinct alone 
that we have to account for; the instincts involved are 
literally hundreds in number. The hive is a very com- 
plex social organization; and if a single break occurs 
in the social structure the existence of the entire colony 
is at stake. No bee can live alone by himself. 
Neither worker, nor drone, nor queen could possibly 
make a living for himself or herself. They must exist 
together as a colony, or they will all perish. In the - 
case of many human beings who live together in a so- 
cial life, the habits and needs are many of them very 
artificial, and could very easily be dispensed with. 





TOO MANY ANCESTORS 143 


Not so with these wonderful insect societies. There 
is no single instinct or habit among the bees but is im- 
perative, and absolutely indispensable for the very ex- 
istence of the colony. ‘These instincts could never 
have been evolved one by one; they must all exist in 
their totality and in their perfection, or the colony 
could not exist. Thus we see the impossibility of ac- 
counting for these habits by any theory of organic 
evolution. 

But these latter remarks are just as true of the social 
wasps, the ants, and the termites, as of the bees. And 
when we see that these social instincts and habits must, 
according to the evolution theory, have been developed 
quite independenily among all these various classes of 
insects, it is not too much to say that such a theory 
taxes our credulity beyond endurance. 

The swarming habit shown by several kinds of an- 
nelid worms is very astonishing. For example, the 
palolo (Eunice viridis), which lives at a depth of six 
or eight feet among the coral rocks near Samoa and 
Fiji, is quite similar in structure to the various “ rock- 
worms ” which are found around various parts of the 
British Isles and in the Western Mediterranean. The 
remarkable thing about the palolo is the absolute regu- 
larity with which it swarms or reproduces. At mid- 
night, on the last quarter of the October moon, no mat- 
ter what the weather may be like, fair or foul, calm or 
hurricane, uncounted millions of these creatures rise 
to the surface, where they remain for a few hours, 
going through a process of dividing or budding, a 
sexual form of reproduction which is equivalent to 
spawning among the higher forms of life. The palolo 
never fails to appear at exactly the right time, for it 
keeps astronomical time; and as the natives catch these 


‘144 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


worms and eat them as a great delicacy, as well as the 
fish which follow them and prey upon them, the occa- 
sions for the appearance of the palolo are eagerly 
awaited, and can be predicted with the same certainty 
as Christmas or the fourth of July. 

The dividing or segmentation which these worms go 
through simultaneously at the surface, results in the 
death of the old individuals, and the formation of 
buds or minute segments which, like so many eggs, 
sink to the bottom, and grow and mature into full- 
grown specimens by the time another year has rolled 
around. If a few individual specimens are placed in 
a glass jar and carefully examined, it will be seen that 
they also break up into segments at the same time that 
this segmentation occurs among their companions in 
the ocean. 

With what astonishment do we watch these creatures 
in the jar, almost at a given signal, as it were, break- 
ing into pieces, just as their comrades are doing in the 
sea, and just as their ancestors have done from time 
immemorial. These budding segments, which sink to- 
gether to the bottom of the water, have surely a won- 
derful inheritance, if inheritance it be, received from 
their ancestors. ‘‘ Their fathers and mothers are al- 
ready dead; and they, on the third quarter of the en- 
suing October moon, at the hour of midnight, will rise 
to the surface, commingle a few hours, and at 8 A. M. 
they will also die, and the next generation will sink, 
even as they, to the mysterious home of the palolo.” 

It seems preposterous to suggest an evolutionary ex- 
planation for such instincts and habits as these. How 
could such a habit have arisen in the first instance? 
In the case of the palolo worm there are absolutely 
no survivors from one year to another; hence, how can 


TOO MANY ANCESTORS 145 


the young palolo have acquired such a habit as this? 
Moreover, how is it that all the acts of this cycle of 
life always come around on time, even to the day and 
the hour, and all this in the case of uncounted millions 
of individuals seemingly acting together in absolute 
unison? 

To add to our surprise, we find that very similar 
habits of swarming occur at another time of year, June 
and July, among the Atlantic palolos; while a Japanese 
palolo, belonging to what is called an entirely different 
family, goes through a very similar performance in the 
nights following the new and the full moon in October 
and November. However, in the latter case the sexual 
segments are confined to the anterior portion of the 
animal, while in the Samoan palolo it is the posterior 
part of the body which is broken in pieces. Thus the 
difficulty of accounting for one of these instances be- 
comes multiplied when we see that it occurs in several 
forms which apparently are not closely related to each 
other. 

We have space to mention only one or two more ex- 
amples. We have many kinds of fishes which agree 
in the curious habit of carrying on the incubation of 
the eggs in the mouth. Thus we have the Arius of 
Ceylon, a kind of cat-fish, in which a dozen or fifteen 
eggs half an inch in diameter are held in the mouth of 
the male until they are hatched. In this case the 
opening of the oesophagus is constricted and almost 
closed for the time that this incubation goes on, while 
the mouth and the pharynx are greatly enlarged so as 
to form a spacious brood-pouch. The same structure 
and habits are also recorded for a different species in 
South America. 

A toad-like batrachian, of Chile, South America, has 


Ay 


146 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION | 


two openings in the floor of the mouth, in the case of 
the male, which at the breeding season become en- 
larged and extend like large brood-pouches back to the 
pubic region. In these pouches the eggs are incubated. 
Thus we have an almost identical structure in these 
fishes and in these amphibians. 

Incubation of the eggs in a fold of the skin is an- 
other curious method of caring for the eggs, which is 
seen in the case of the pipe-fishes, where it occurs in 
the male in certain families, while in other families the 
same office is performed by the female. In a certain 
cat-fish of Guiana, the Aspredo, the female carries the 
eggs attached to the spongy skin of the belly, in much 
the same way as the well-known Surinam toad, Pipa, 
carries her eggs on the back. But a still closer anal- 
ogy to the fish just mentioned is the case of a frog in 
Ceylon, where the eggs, about twenty in number, are 
found fastened to the abdomen of the female, adher- 
ing together so as to form a flat disc. The midwife 
toad of Europe, Alytes obstetricans, has a very similar 
habit of carrying the eggs, except that in this case it 
is the male which acts as guardian for the eggs. In 
other animals still more remote in point of relationship, 
we have this same method of brood-nursing, as for ex- 
ample in the case of a certain kind of amphibious 
water-bug, which has the habit of carrying the eggs in 
the form of a disc cemented upon the back of the male, 
which are placed there by the female. 


XII 
In his presidential address before the Botanical Sec- 
tion, at the Liverpool meeting of the British Associa- 
tion (1923), Prof. A. G. Tansley dwelt upon the in- 
creasing doubt among modern botanists regarding the 


TOO MANY ANCESTORS 147 


origin of many organs which were formerly thought to 
be homogenetic, or of common origin by descent. 
Thus we find that the botanists are meeting with the 
same difficulties which have so long troubled the zoolo- 
gists. Many quotations might be given here to show 
that these newer ideas have affected the botanists in 
much the same way as they have the zoologists, by 
tending to throw all of the old evolutionary ideas into 
confusion. Prof. F. O. Bower, of the University of 
Glasgow, says that “at the present moment we seem 
to have reached a phase of negation in respect ” to the 
former ideas that we could trace out the evolutionary 
pedigree of our modern floras. “The whole of this 
branch of botany,” he says, “‘ seems to leave the great 
majority of the younger botanists cold” (Nature, 
March 8, 1924). 

From all this we see that botany as well as zoology 
has reached an impasse. Each of these sciences has 
been making it its chief business to trace out evolu- 
tionary lines of descent for the modern living forms 
with which it has been dealing. But in the closer ex- 
amination of the organs and the embryonic develop- 
ment of these forms, botany as well as zoology has 
found itself up at the end of a blind alley; and each 
of these sciences is now looking about in bewilderment 
seeking some way out. 


XII 


If now we attempt to gather up the conclusions to 
be extracted from the series of facts which we have 


been studying, it seems to me that morphology com- | 


pletely fails us as a guide in attempting to trace out 
genetic relationships. There is scarcely a single struc- 
ture in the whole animal kingdom which cannot be 


148 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


found almost duplicated in two or more kinds of ani- 
mals widely separated from each other, where it is im- 
possible to imagine a community of descent, and 
|. where, on any theory of evolution, we must say that 
' these structures have been independently evolved. It 
thus appears that homology is a chimera, when we un- 
dertake to use it to prove evolution or genetic rela- 
tionships. As Willey admits, ‘“‘ Hardly one universal 
criterion of strict homology can be mentioned which 
would pass muster in a critical examination.” Mor- 
phological comparisons, or even alleged homologies, 
may be very convenient and very useful, from the 
standpoint of classification and of study. These 
methods enable us to make comparisons between the 
various kinds of animals, and we may in this way or- 
ganize our knowledge into a science. But if we are 
to maintain any clearness of thought, in other words, 
if we do not allow ourselves to become fooled or be- 
wildered by the tools of classification which we em- 
ploy, we will have to acknowledge that all our systems 
of classification are mere artificial schemes, simply 
convenient intellectual devices for organizing our 
knowledge into a science. But to permit the final 
products of such a classification to deceive us into 
thinking that we have thereby shown how one kind of 
animal has developed into another, is to show a decided ~ 
lack of mental clearness. We might similarly arrange 
all the various kinds of dogs in a serial line from the 
wee toy dogs of Paris up to the mastiff or the St. Ber- 
nard; but only a fool would argue from this that the 
latter breeds had been derived from the former. In- 
deed, one might arrange all the various automobiles 
now in existence, from the Ford runabout to the Pack- 
ard or the Pierce-Arrow; and yet no one would sup- 


TOO MANY ANCESTORS 149 


pose that this arrangement really showed anything in 
the way of genetic descent; the Dodge or the Chevro- 
let is not the missing link between the Ford and the 
Packard. 

In short, we must say that the whole morphological 
argument which was so strongly used by Darwin and 
his followers, which has been so long employed to show 
how the higher kinds of animals have evolved, is a 
snare and a delusion. It does not at all prove what 
the evolutionist has said that it proves; and if we are 
to maintain clear habits of thinking we must say that 
morphological comparisons are utterly useless in show- 
ing genetic relationships, except, of course, where the 
whole structure of an animal is like that of another, 
as in the case of the dog, which has quite evidently 
been derived from the wolf, or as in the case of the 
common domestic cat and the various kinds of wild 
cats, which have evidently been derived from the same 
primary ancestors as the lions, tigers, and leopards. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Cambridge Natural History, 10 vols.; 1909. 

Flower (W. H.) and Lydekker (R.), Mammals Living and 
Extinct; 1891. 

Mivart, St. G., The Genesis of Species; 1871. 

Osborn, H. F., Paleontology, in Encycl. Brit., Vol. XX, pp. 
579-591. 

Willey, Arthur, Convergence in Evolution; 1911. 


Vil 
THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 
I 


VERY one of the higher animals has started 

from a single cell, the fertilized ovum, formed 
# by the union of two cells, the matured ovum 
and the sperm, or spermatozoon. To understand the 
development of this fertilized ovum into the mature 
animal, it will be necessary to consider briefly the char- 
acters and behaviour of cells in general. 

The higher types of both plants and animals are 
composed of multitudes of cells, each of which may 
be compared to some of the lower forms of life, such 
as the amoeba, which consists of but a single cell. A 
typical cell is surrounded by a cell wall, is composed 
of a mass of protoplasm, which is granular in structure, 
and constitutes what Huxley called the physical basis 
of life. It contains a well-marked portion called the 
nucleus, with other structures which are quite charac- 
teristic of it. The detailed description of the cell is 
not essential for us; but we must note how cells 
multiply. 

Ordinary cell division, by which one cell divides‘and 
becomes two cells, is called mitosis. During this 
highly complicated process of mitosis, the nucleus di- 
vides, certain characteristic structures called the 
chromosomes appear out of a more or less undiffer- 


entiated portion called the chromatin. These chromo- 
150 





THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 151 


somes arrange themselves at right angles to the axis 
between the two nuclei, and then each chromosome 
splits lengthwise, one-half going to the one end or side 
of the cell and the other half going to the other. A 
constriction between these two portions of the cell now 
takes place, and thus the one cell has become two. 
With some further growth and maturation, each of 
these cells is now a fully matured individual unit, ready 
to take its part in the functions of the organism to 
which it belongs. 

The cells composing one of the higher animals may 
be divided into two general classes, (1) somatic cells 
and (2) germ or reproductive cells. 

The somatic or body cells perform the various func- 
tions of muscular action, responding to stimuli, and the 
many complicated processes connected with metab- 
olism and growth. These cells are grouped together 
into what we call tissues, groups of tissues comprising 
an organ; thus forming the muscles, nerves and other 
structures of man and animals; and the leaves, 
branches and roots of plants. 

The germ cells do not take any part in the routine 
work of the body, such as the digestion of food or the 
various bodily functions. ‘They constitute a sort of 
cellular aristocracy, with one work only to perform, 
namely, to serve as the origin of other new individuals 
like the individual in which they are located. ‘These 
germ cells are not produced by the somatic cell; rather 
should we say that the somatic or body cells are pro- 
duced by the germ cells. In this view of the matter, 
the old problem of which came first the hen or the egg, 
is easily solved; the egg produces the hen and other 
eggs. These germ cells are protected and nourished 
by the somatic cells, and are safely cared for in special 


a4 
5 


152 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


organs. But the germ cells are a class apart by them- 
selves; they preserve their individuality, and never — 
unite with the body cells. 

The female germ cell, called the ovum, goes through 
a process of what is called maturation, during which 
the number of chromosomes which it contains becomes 
reduced one-half. It may now become fertilized by 
one of the male sperm cells entering it and uniting with 
it, this male or sperm cell having already gone through 
a similar process of reduction, so that it also carries 
only the half number of chromosomes. By the union 
of these two germ cells, the original or normal number 
of the chromosomes is restored. These chromosomes 
are now regarded as the carriers of all the various 
hereditary qualities. All of the cells of any certain 
species of animal have each the same number of 
chromosomes, the body cells having the same number 
as the germ cells. The cells of the frog have fourteen, 
certain snails have thirty-two; while for man the num- 
ber is variously stated as twenty-four or forty-eight. 

The newly fertilized ova of an elephant, a dog, a 
woman, or a whale, would be essentially all alike. Not 
even the highest powers of the microscope are sufficient 
to show any noticeable differences between them, ex- 
cept in size and in the number of the chromosomes. 
This only means that any one of the higher animals 
starts from a single fertilized germ cell which is to all 
appearances exactly like the germ cell from which any 
other animal originates. Thus, as they all start alike, 
there must be many constant characteristics in the 
early stages of their development wherein they would 
seem to run parallel to each other. Each of these fer- 
tilized ova will first divide into halves, each half being 
called a daughter cell. These two daughter cells next 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 153 


divide, making four; a further division makes eight; 
and this division is continued until a greater or lesser 
number of cells is produced, the number varying with 
the kind of animal under consideration. 

The process of division of the germ cell is called 
cleavage; and when this process has continued for a 
number of times, the mass of the cells will perhaps 
now look like a mulberry, a sphere composed of a great 
many individual cells.» Presently the cleavage cells 
arrange themselves so as to form a structure more like 
a hollow sphere, the cleavage cells themselves merely 
composing the wall of this sphere. This is called the 
blastoderm or blastula stage of development, and this 
stage is likewise common to all of the higher kinds of 
animals. Next a portion of the blastoderm cell-layer 
bends inward, producing a groove or small depression, 
resulting in forming two portions of the blastoderm 
layer, the inner portion which has sunken in being 
called the endoblast, and the other portion which has 
preserved its original form being called the ectodlast. 
When this stage of, development is completed it is 
called the gastrula stage; and it is characterized by a 
double walled layer around a central cavity. This 
gastrula stage is also common to all the higher ani- 
mals; that is, the human embryo, with that of an ele- 
phant, or a dog, or a fish, each goes through its 
gastrula stage. 

1 Note.—If the cleavage cells are made to separate from 
one another in the two-cell or the four-cell stage, each of 
these cells will then go on to develop into an entire animal 
of smaller size than the normal. In this way two complete 
individuals have been produced from a single egg of a star- 
fish, a sea-urchin, an amphioxus, and of several other kinds 
of invertebrates. Various theoretical explanations have been 
offered for these remarkable facts, 


154 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


In the case of most of the higher animals, the de- 
velopment of the,embryo goes on within the body of 
the mother until it becomes a highly complex organ- 
ism, composed of many tissues and organs. In the 
case of the birds, this development takes place within 
the egg, which is outside the body of the mother. But 
the development in all cases is essentially the same. 
The development is continuous from the stage of the 
germ cell to the mature animal; and whether this de- 
velopment goes on inside or outside of an egg struc- 
ture, it is a regular and uninterrupted process of de- 
velopment. 

If we could examine the cells composing the embryo 
in any of its early stages, whether in the cleavage 
stage, the blastoderm stage, or even in the gastrula 
stage, we should find that these cells are all apparently 
alike; there seems to be little or no differentiation be- 
tween them. But from the gastrula stage onward there 
is a gradual differentiation of the cells into distinct 
groups to form the various kinds of tissues; these tis- 
sues become grouped together into organs and the 
various parts of the body, resulting in the development 
of the mature individual. Since a horse, a pigeon, a 
grasshopper, a starfish, and a man all start alike from 
a single fertilized cell, it necessarily follows that they 
will run parallel to one another in several of their early 
stages of development. Any other method would be 
a whimsical disregard of the principle of economy and 
expediency in nature. 

We may make a comparison between their parallel- 
ism in development and the directions pursued by vari- 
ous lines of railway running out from such a center 
as Chicago. All the eastern roads continue parallel to 
each other for a long distance out of the city; but 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 155 


gradually some of them turn to the south, others to 
the north, while still others keep on due eastward. 
And it necessarily follows that the several roads which 
lead to Montreal, New York, or Boston hold more 
closely to the same general direction for a much longer 
distance, than is the case with those roads which ulti- 
mately turn to Georgia or Florida. 

In the same way, we might expect that any two of 
the higher animals, as a man and a gorilla, or even a 
man and a dog, or a man and a horse, would show 
many more resemblances to each other in their em- 
bryonic development, than would be the case between 
a man and a starfish, or even between a man and a 
turtle. Contrastedly, we would expect that an insect 
and a vertebrate would begin to diverge from one an- 
other more early in their development; while two in- 
sects, as a beetle and a grasshopper, or any two verte- 
brates, as a fish and a dog, would not begin to diverge 
from each other so soon. In other words, all of the 
developing vertebrates may be spoken of as diverging 
in one general direction, and the invertebrates in an- 
other general direction; but the various members of 
the vertebrates will journey along together for a con- 
siderable time, and only as they come to stages fur- 
ther along toward maturity are we able clearly to dis- 
tinguish one kind from another. All this is of the very 
nature of things; it could not well be otherwise, if 
nature is efficient and economical in her processes of 
embryonic development. And yet for nearly a hun- 
dred years evolutionists have excitedly pointed to these 
facts as proofs of their theory that man and the higher 
mammals have all gone through the lower stages of life 
in their evolutionary development millions of years ago. 


156 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


II 


When the general facts of embryonic development 
were first made known about a hundred years ago, 
those who were inclined toward the evolution theory 
pointed out these facts of parallelism as very signifi- 
cant. It was claimed that one of the higher animals 
‘- in its embryonic development always passes through a 
very rapid and very much condensed recapitulation of 
the history which its species has passed through in the 
course of its evolution through a long series of grad- 
ually developing ancestors. This is the well-known 
recapitulation theory, which during the latter part of 
the nineteenth century was considered one of the 
strongest arguments in favour of the theory of organic 
evolution. This theory was much employed by Haeckel 
and his followers; by them it was exalted into an al- 
leged ‘‘ biogenetic law,’’ or principle of all life; and 
under the guidance of such men as Louis Agassiz, E. D. 
Cope, and Alpheus Hyatt, embryonic comparisons have 
for two generations or more been used as the chief key 
to determine the best or “ natural ” method of classify- 
ing the various genera and species, the fossils as well 
as the living ones. 

In harmony with what has been given above, the 
human embryo very early shows traces of a vertebral 
column, terminating in an enlarged bulb which ulti- 
mately becomes the brain. It should be remembered 
that during its entire development the embryo is 
strictly dependent on its own resources; for it receives 
neither blood supply nor nerve stimulation of any kind 
from the mother, who simply acts as its guardian or 
nurse; hence this central nervous system, with its ap- 
parently undue size of the brain, is the very essential 
foundation stage for all of its future growth. In this 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 157 


stage the embryo is very small; but under a magnify- 
ing glass it is seen to be divided into several lobes with 
what looks much like a “ tail,” the latter constricted 
into a series of thirty-two segments, each of the latter 
being the start for one of the future vertebrae, or of 
the nerve-centers contained within these vertebrae. 
Though still very small, the embryo is seen to be 
curved upon its ventral surface’ in the shape of a semi- 
circle. Two dark spots are seen on the sides of one 
of the anterior lobes, these spots marking the locations 
of the future eyes. 

In this stage the thorax and the abdomen have not 
been formed, and of course none of the viscera or in- 
ternal organs have yet started. From about the mid- 
dle of the segmented hind part, familiarly called the 
‘tail,’ there develops a system of vessels which ter- 
minate in a globular mass, these vessels furnishing the 
nutriment for the growing embryo. Close in front of 
the bulb which marks the cerebellum, under the bulb 
composing the forebrain, are seen several incomplete 
arches with a corresponding number of clefts or de- 
pressions between them, these structures arising from 
the sides and uniting at the median line in front. 
When the embryo becomes more developed, the upper 
one of these arches forms the upper jaw; the second 
forms the lower jaw; between them, when the two sides 
of the organs have united is the oral or mouth cavity. 
The others eventually go to form the organs of the 
neck, the roots of the tongue, and the larynx. 


1 Note.—In contrast with this forward or ventral curva- 


ture of the vertebrate embryo, it should be noted that the on 
embryo of many of the invertebrates is curved backwards, or ¢ 


dorsally. How could both of these methods indicate the same 
ancestry, if the recapitulation theory be true? 


158 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION / 


These parts have been called branchial arches, be- 
cause of their fancied resemblance to the arches of cer- 
tain fishes which support the gills. By Haeckel and 
others the clefts or depressions between them were 
called ‘“‘ gill-slits,’ though actual openings into the 
pharynx are never formed in the human embryo; and 
evolutionists never become tired of pointing to them 
as proof that man in the long ago passed through a 
stage resembling that of a fish. But it should be ex- 
pressly noted that these embryonic arches do not take 
any part in producing the respiratory organs in man, 
as the true branchial arches do in the fish. In the 
light of what is now known about this part of embry- 
ology, it may be stated with confidence that these so- 
called arches and clefts are the very natural and neces- 
sary structural preparation for the growth of the or- 
gans which ultimately develop from them. Any fan- 
cied resemblance between these structures and the gill- 
slits of elasmobranch fishes is merely the product of 
a highly inventive imagination. Inaccurate or even 
deliberately false diagrams of these parts have been 
peddled around from one textbook to another, mate- 
rially assisting in this misconception, Haeskel’s inven- 
tions having been one of the chief supports of this 
propaganda. 

Frankly, it is quite discouraging to see that Vernon 
Kellogg, in his latest work, Evolution the Way of Man 
(1924), dwells long and earnestly on this argument 
from “ recapitulation,” gill-clefts and all, and says that 
these “ recapitulation” features of the embryo consti- 
- tute “one of the strongest of the evidences of evolu- 
tion” (p. 54). Ihad thought that modern science had 
definitely outgrown this whimsical explanation of the 
structures found in the human embryo, and that the 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 159 


exposure of the methods.used by Haeckel in this con- 
nection had brought the whole thing into a state where 
common sense and accuracy would again have the right 
of way over whimsicality and misrepresentation. 


Il 


Many of the alleged instances of vestigial organs in 
man, as adduced by the evolutionists, are trivial and 
childish, while others are completely false as to fact. 
I do not know of a single instance that ought not prop- 
erly to be classed under the one head or the other. 


Among the trivial ones may be mentioned the mus- _ 


cles of the ears, of the scalp, and of the coccyx, with 
the coccyx itself, which has been asserted to be the 
relic of a tail. Arguments based on such examples are 
trivial in the extreme; and would never have been used 
in this connection, if Charles Darwin had not set the 
example. If the theologians of the Middle Ages were 
addicted to hair splitting and word twisting, the evolu- 
tionists have merely changed the form, but not the 
habit. 

Among the organs which were once said to be use- 


less relics of the past, may be mentioned the thyroid r 


gland, the pineal gland, and the vermiform appendix. 
The thyroid used to be called a useless heirloom; but 
with the advance in a knowledge of physiological pro- 
cesses, we now know that it serves a very essential 
function in keeping us all from becoming cretins. In- 
deed, the mistake made by evolutionists regarding the 
thyroid was recognized by Huxley, who said: “ The 
recent discovery of the important part played by the 
thyroid gland should be a warning to all speculators 
about useless organs.” 

But this warning was unheeded; for in 1919, Sir 


£ 
< 
a. 
% 


160 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


Arthur Keith, in his presidential address before the 
Anthropological Section of the British Association for 
the Advancement of Science, had this to say: 


“We have hitherto regarded the pineal gland, little bigger 
than a wheat grain and buried deeply in the brain, as a mere 
useless vestige of a median or parietal eye, derived from some 
distant human ancestor in whom that eye was functional; 
but on the clinical and experimental evidence now rapidly 
accumulating we must assign to it a place in the machinery 
which controls the growth of the body” (Smithsonian Report, 
1919; p. 448). 


Another portion of the human anatomy which is 
often spoken of as a vestige or relic from some previous 
form of animal life, is the vermiform appendix, a tubu- 
lar structure about the size of a short lead pencil. 
Evolutionists claim that this worm-like appendage is 
the vestigial remains of the much elongated caecum of 
the herbivorous animals. This vermiform appendix is 
found also in the anthropoid apes and in most other 
herbivorous animals; but in man it has often been re- 
garded as a useless or even a dangerous relic of the 
past. Among civilized peoples this organ often gives 
a good deal of trouble; but it is significant that among 
people who live more naturally, the organ never gives 
any trouble whatever; and we may well suppose that 
it has a useful function to perform, though it is not 
well understood just what its function really is. The 
appendix is composed largely of lymphoid tissue, in 
common with the spleen, the thymus, and the tonsils; 
and any of these can apparently be removed without 
causing any particular harm to the rest of the body. 
However, we do know that all of these organs serve 
as the factories or points of origin of large quantities 
of the white blood-cells. 


~ 


i 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 161 


It also appears that these lymphoid tissues, includ- 
ing the appendix, act as filters or obstructions to for- 
eign particles, such as disease germs, and even to chem- 
ical poisons, in their passage toward the general cir- 
culation system. It may be safely asserted that the 4K 
appendix has a useful work to perform, and that in the 
normal condition of the body it not only would never 
be of any trouble necessitating its surgical removal, 
but would assist in maintaining the normal tone of the 
body. The old notion that it is a relic of a former 
stage of man’s existence, a useless and dangerous heir- 
loom which has persisted in man’s body when it is not 
wanted and not needed, is merely a part of the alleged 
evidence in favour of the evolution theory which has 
no substantial foundation in actual fact. 

Another class of organs which present rather more 
plausible arguments for organic evolution, are the 
genuine rudimentary organs, such as the upper incisor 
teeth of foetal calves, which never break through the 
gums but are resorbed; the minute traces of hind 
limbs in the pythons, boas, and some other serpents; 
the rudimentary teeth of certain whales which never 
cut through the gums. Structures like these are quite 
common through the whole range of the animal king- 
dom. The trace of a wing which we find in the ap- 
teryx of Australia, may be of the same nature as the 
rudimentary eyes of the blind fish in caves; for it is 
evident that the latter are descended from ancestors 
which once had functional eyes. But Mendelism has 
thrown much light on the possibilities of such struc- 
tures; for Morgan has produced several types of blind 
flies, and also of wingless ones; and he got these types, 
not by a long series of gradual reductions, but by a 
single mutation. 


162 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


But genetic experiments have shown that we can, by 
the proper methods, again bring out these suppressed 
characters or structures, so that the descendants of 
these eyeless or wingless varieties will have fully func- 
tional eyes and wings. And although we cannot con- 
duct similar experiments in the case of the whale, or 
perhaps even in that of the apteryx or the domestic 
cattle, it is quite reasonable to suppose that the same 
general principles of Mendelian segregation hold true 
throughout the entire animal kingdom. Hence if we 
could perform the proper breeding experiments, we 
might be able to bring out into full functional activity 
many, or possibly all, of these curious rudimentary 
organs which we find so wide-spread through the vari- 
ous types of animals, and also of plants. 

Thus these rudimentary organs are no longer a puz- 
zle; least of all do they render any support to the 
evolution hypothesis. They do show the possibilities 
of change or variation, and are thus an argument 
against the older ideas of the absolute “ fixity” of 
‘“‘ species;”’ but they give no encouragement to the doc- 
trine of the evolution of all animal forms from a single 
protozoic ancestor. In the light of what we have 
brought out above, these rudimentary organs (foetal 
teeth, etc.) might all be classed with the stumps of 
tails in certain dogs or cats, or the traces of horns on 
hornless cattle. That is, they are only visible, surface 
manifestations of latent characters which can always 
be brought out into functional activity by appropriate 
methods of breeding. In many houses we see sets of 
electric wires which are never used; they were inserted 
there for a possible contingency that might require 
them. In a similar way, nature has made provision 


for many structures that may not be used very much, 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 163 


sometimes are never used at all, under the present en- 
vironment of these animals or plants; whereas under 
other environments in the long ago they may have been 
useful, or they may again become of use when the real 
proper environment of these animals or plants is again 
te 


IV 


* We have already mentioned the recapitulation theory 
which was so much overworked by Haeckel, the self- 
appointed evangelist for making Darwinism popular in 
Germany. This theory of recapitulation has had its 
own vicissitudes, and its standing has greatly declined 
among real scientists, though it is still being used by 
the more ardent advocates of the evolution doctrine in 
much the same way as it was used by Haeckel. 

It will be in order to deal, first, with the subject 
historically. 

In the story of the death of Absalom, it will be re- 
membered that Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, was deter- 
mined to run with a message when as yet he really 
had no tidings ready. Too often in the early history 
of scientific discoveries a theory has become popular 
when it had only the slenderest pretext of accurate 
knowledge. Time and again the theories which have 
misled the world and which have been widely heralded 
as disproving the Bible, have been broadcasted when 
only the merest smattering of knowledge was really 
known. It was in this way that the recapitulation 
theory had its beginnings. Lorenzo Oken, an a priori 
philosopher and theorizer, in 1805 and subsequently, 
published an interpretation of embryonic development 
in which he said that the ovum of one of the higher 
animals passes through or repeats the forms of all the 


164 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


‘classes of animals below it, making a repetition of the 
story of creation in its own individual development. 
Von Baer, about 1828, criticized this idea; but his own 
views on the subject were strongly coloured by the de- 
velopment hypothesis, and the subsequent history of 
the theory was largely influenced by what Von Baer 
taught, so much so that the recapitulation theory is 
often called his. 

The study of the fossils was at that time just gain- 
‘ing scientific recognition; and Louis Agassiz, who had 
been a pupil of Cuvier, made the recapitulation theory, 
as we have already stated in Chapter VI, a very im- 
portant factor in arranging the fossils found in the 
rocks. Agassiz specialized in the study of fossil fishes, 
but he extended his studies also to all other branches 
of animal life. He relied very largely upon the. facts 
of embryology to make up the deficiencies in the fos- 
sils, and to prevent the confusion which he believed 
would result if these fossils were to be arranged wholly 
in accord with their anatomical differences alone. In 
1857 he wrote, “I satisfied myself long ago that em- 
bryology furnishes the most trustworthy standard to 
determine the relative rank among animals.” In the 
system ultimately worked out by him we find four 
great parallelisms or systems of relationships: 


(1) Between the geological succession of animals and their 
taxonomic rank or structural position; 

(2) Between the geological succession of animals and the 
embryonic development of their living representatives ; 

(3) Between the taxonomic or classification rank of animals 
and their embryonic development; 

(4) All of these three series were again compared to the 
geographical distribution of animals. (P. E. David- 
son, The Recapitulation Theory, p. 10; 1914.) 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 165 


Agassiz became very enthusiastic over this method 
of comparison, for he thought he saw in these parallel- 
isms the key to the history of creation. ‘‘ The same 
series everywhere!” he exclaimed; and although he 
opposed Darwinism and organic evolution to the last, 
he never seemed to realize that, by means of his own 
artificial arrangement of the fossils so as to accord 
with both the embryonic development and the classifi- 
cation series of the living types, he was really induc- 
ing the scientific world to start chasing the phantom 
of organic evolution for the next two generations. 

We have already seen that the early geological ex- 
plorers, by a slip of logic, took their various local se- 
quences of strata and magnified them into world 
sequences, thus giving us the modern fossiliferous 
onion-coat theory. It was a purely artificial act to 
arrange the various scattered deposits into a general 
scheme of world-development; but when Agassiz (and 
all subsequent workers in this field have followed him) 
arranged the details of this geological outline by com- 
parison with the embryonic development of the living 
representatives, he was, if possible, making it still 
more a purely artificial affair. Henceforth the study 
of embryonic development was made the key, not only 
for classifying the fossils, but also for arranging the 
modern living animals in what was supposed to be their 
true relationship based on genetic affinity. Fritz Mul- 
ler was one of the first to make an application of this 
method in the classification of the living animals; but 
it soon became the fashion to trace out genealogies, 
phylogenies, or racial histories according to this 
method. Ernst Haeckel was the most ardent in using 
this method; but for nearly a hundred years this 
method of comparison and of parallelisms has been 


166 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


regarded as the pole star in all biological and geological 
investigations. 

When Darwin put forth the sixth edition of his 
Origin of Species in 1872, he made extensive use of 
the work of Fritz Muller, Haeckel and Agassiz, and 
urged the now familiar argument based on the interpre- 
tation of embryology, which says that the embryo re- 
peats or recapitulates the history of its remote ances- 
tors. He refers to Agassiz as believing that this is a 
universal law of nature; and he says, “‘ We may hope 
hereafter to see the law proved true.” 

Haeckel was so much of a missionary for promul- 
gating this doctrine that he seemed to stop at nothing 
if only he could proclaim this new scientific gospel. 
Nothing less than a complete classification of all living 
types and a tracing out of all the details of their de- 
velopments from a single moneron, would satisfy him. 
Accordingly, in making his now notorious thirty stages 
in the development of man, he was compelled to manu- 
facture several stages in order to have forms which 
would correspond to the gastrula, to the coelomula, 
etc., and these hypothetical forms, which were merely 
creatures of his own imagination, were given scientific 
names and deliberately inserted in his series, in order 
to show a complete evolution from the moneron to man 
which would be an exact parallel to the embryonic de- 
velopment of the modern individual from the ovum to 
maturity. In elaborating the details of this work he 
did not hesitate to “ doctor ” the embryos farther up 
the line and nearer to maturity, though his manipula- 
tions in this respect were denounced by many of his 
colleagues as little better than deliberate frauds. It 
will not be necessary for us here to enter into the de- 
tails of this disagreeable subject. The vicious logic 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 167 


behind the whole scheme used by Haeckel was fully as 
bad as any of those manufactured embryos which 
have often been pointed out as his deliberate frauds. 

By the year 1866, Herbert Spencer criticized the 
prevailing form of the recapitulation theory as it was 
being taught by Haeckel. He declared that it is not 
a fact that each higher organism passes through stages 
in which it resembles the adult forms of lower organ- 
isms; and he also declared that ‘“‘ The embryological | 
parallelism is qualified by irregularities that are mostly 
small, in many cases considerable, and occasionally 
great.” 

In subsequent editions of his Principles of Biology, 
Spencer omitted much of his criticisms of the recapit- 
ulation theory. As we have already shown in a pre- 
vious chapter, Spencer was one of the strongest ad- 
vocates of the theory of Lamarckism, or the theory of 
the inheritance of acquired characters. ‘The latter 
theory seems to be intimately bound up with the re- 
capitulation theory; indeed all of those leading scien- 
tists such as Darwin, Haeckel and Spencer, who have 
lent their influence to the recapitulation theory, have 
also been advocates of the doctrine of the inheritance 
of acquired characters. Perhaps the waning popular- 
ity of the latter notion has helped to cast discredit 
upon the former. However this may be, the two doc- 
trines have gone the same road into comparative 
oblivion. As we have dealt with the former doctrine 
in a previous chapter, we are here concerned only with 
the history of the recapitulation idea. 

But it would never do to pass by the work of 
Alpheus Hyatt, of Boston, who about the year 1866 
made another important contribution to the theory by 
an elaborate presentation of some of the facts of 


168 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


geology which he thought were in harmony with this 
general doctrine. This phase of the subject has to do 
chiefly with the invertebrates, and is too technical to 
serve our purpose here. Suffice it to say that the 
school of paleontologists founded by Hyatt and Cope 
have become the strongest advocates of the recapitula- 
tion theory. However, like the work of Haeckel, the 
methods employed by Hyatt and his followers are arti- 
ficial and quite illogical, in that they involve a vicious 
circle of reasoning which can really get us nowhere in 
any investigation of actual facts. Davidson, who ad- 
mits far more foundation for this work of Hyatt and 
Cope than I would be willing to grant, shows that at 
best these comparisons based on the development of 
mollusks and other invertebrates must be of very lim- 
ited application. He says, “ It is plain that generaliza- 
tions carried over from this rather circumscribed field 
of facts to the vertebrate or human territory, and more 
especially to the human nervous system or mind, can 
be the sheerest hypothetical possibilities.” Indeed, the 
more detailed subsequent investigations among the 
mollusks, brachiopods and other invertebrates, have 
shown a constant series of examples which contradict 
every theory of recapitulation hitherto devised, even 
though this theory has been repeatedly amended and 
revised in order to correspond more nearly with these 
new discoveries.* 

1 Note.—For example, many of the echinoderms, which 
include the sea-urchins and the star-fishes, make very abrupt 
metamorphoses from the larval to the adult forms; and Mats, 
Bride argues that this cannot be a recapitulation, for “no 
species of animal could suddenly change its habits from 
swimming by means of cilia to walking with tube-feet.” 
(Camb. Nat. Hist., Vol. 1, p. 617.) In addition, the 
echinoderms start with “a marked bilateral symmetry” in 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 169 


In a previous paragraph we have spoken of Dar- 
win’s sympathy for the belief of Agassiz and his ex- 
pression of the hope that hereafter this “law” of 
Agassiz might be proved true. In commenting upon 
this remark, Adam Sedgwick, the eminent English em- 
bryologist, has said: 


“But as Huxley has shown and as the whole course of 
paleontological investigation has demonstrated, no such state- 
ment can be made. The extinct forms of life are very sim- 
ilar to those now existing, and there is nothing specially em- 
bryonic about them. So that the facts, as we know them, 
lend no support to the theory.” (Darwin and Modern 
Science, 1909, p. 174; quoted by Davidson, of. cit., p. 29.) 


Sedgwick’s reference to Huxley is to some papers 
written by the latter in the years 1855 and 1862. In 
the latter paper Huxley wrote: “An impartial survey 
of positively ascertained truth then negatives the com- 
mon doctrines of progressive modification, or a neces- 
sary progress from more or less embryonic forms. . . 
it either shows us no evidence of any such modifica- 
tion or demonstrates it to have been very slight.” 

And all this, it must be remembered, is in spite of 
the fact that the paleontologists have had the world to 
pick from, and have been able to arrange the various 
geological formations in almost any way to suit their 
fancy, or to suit what they thought ought to be the 
proper serial arrangement of these fossil groups. 

Zittel, the great German geologist, writing in 1895 
regarding the relationship of paleontology and the re- 
the larval stage, and their subsequent change to radial sym- 
metry “constitutes one of the most remarkable life-histories 
known in the animal kingdom” (/d., p. 429). The recapitu- 


lation theory sounds like nonsense when confronted with 
facts like these. 


7 


we 


170 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


capitulation theory, said that the embryonic develop- 
ment of living organisms could “ afford but an unsafe 
basis for the reconstruction of ancient faunas and 
floras, since experience teaches that the biogenetic law 
[the recapitulation theory] is frequently veiled or 
completely obscured owing to various causes.” After 
giving a number of illustrations of the absurdities in- 
volved in applying this recapitulation theory to the 
fossil forms, he remarks that these examples “ may 
suffice to show how trivial are the discoveries concern- 
ing existence in earlier periods of earth-history that can 
follow from ontogenetic [embryonic] researches alone.” 


V 


If we come now to a consideration of the present 
status of the recapitulation theory, we shall find that 
it has very few defenders among the biologists of first- 
rate importance. Adam Sedgwick will admit that there 
is a general correspondence between the developing 
embryo and the evolutionary history of the race, for 
he is still a believer in the general doctrine of organic 
evolution. But Sedgwick can see only an agreement 
between the two series in their broad outlines. “ The 
generalization,” he says, “‘ undoubtedly had its origin 
in the fact that there is what may be called a family 
resemblance between embryos and larvae, but this re- 
semblance, which is by no means exact, is largely su- 
perficial and does not extend to anatomical detail.” 

In his work dealing with the recapitulation theory, 
a work to which I have been largely indebted, David- 
son gives us the following summary of the present 
situation: 

“From these authoritative statements it appears that the 
facts of embryonic resemblances fail to support recapitulation 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 171 


in all three of its main implications. The order of appear- 
ance of characters is not uniformly, or even commonly, that 
required by recapitulation, which is first those representative 
of the order, and then in succession, of the family, genus, 
species. In the second place, embryonic resemblance in com- 
parable stages does not vary directly with remoteness of kin- 
ship, but shows often very great divergence from this rule, 
indicating unlike careers in lines of descent in the same 
group and therefore great diversity in the appearance of 
variation during development, at any period, and not only at 
the adolescent or adult end of ontogeny. Finally, where re- 
semblance does exist, it is not identity, nor even close [re- 
semblance], implying that the effect of variation upon the 
same ancestral structure has not been the same in allied lines 
of descent, but has been productive of new structures, sug- 
gesting perhaps in broad outlines the ancestral structure, but 
still variant in every case, and essentially so” (pp. 34, 35). 


Depéret, the French paleontologist, refers to 
Haeckel’s hypothetical ancestors of man as “‘ visions 
of the mind,” because no objective fossil evidence can 
be pointed to as corresponding to them. Geoffrey 
Smith has given quite similar criticisms of the at- 
tempts to build up a complete account of the animal 
kingdom from its alleged primitive forms. He says 
that we can get along very well in arranging the various 
animals in their appropriate phyla, and give some ap- 
pearance of relationship between the genera and fam- 
ilies in these phyla. ‘‘ But when we attempt to go be- 
hind the phyla and discover their origin and inter- 
relationships, we leave the firm ground altogether and 
wander in a slippery and nebulous region of specula- 
tion. 


“Tt is true,” he goes on, “that certain hypotheses of a 
plausible character have been suggested which have satisfied 
uncritical minds, and which we often hear advanced as a 
part of ascertained science and accepted in an otiose spirit. 


172 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


. . But what is there of reality in these speculations? 
They rest not on any objective evidence but upon the ten- 
dency of the mind to pass from the apparently simple to the 
manifestly complex, and to regard the former as primitive 
and ancestral, and the latter as secondary and derivative.” 
(Primitive Animals, pp. 14, et seq.) 


In his article on embryology in the latest edition 
of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Professor Sedgwick 
enumerates a series of structures in the embryo 
of the higher vertebrates which are similar in a 
general way to some structures in the lower orders 
of animals. For instance, the heart is at first a simple 
tubular structure, corresponding in a general way to 
the simple heart of the Jower orders; and only in the 
later stages do we have a heart of four chambers. The 
skeleton, which is bony in the adult, passes through a 
stage entirely without bone and consisting mainly of 
cartilage. Plenty of instances of this sort might be 
mentioned, for the works on comparative embryology 
are fullofthem. But they are only the inevitable con- 
sequences of the development of the individual from 
the simple to the complex. The final structures could 
not be produced without going through the preparatory 
stages just enumerated any more than one would ex- 
pect to build a house without first putting in the 
foundation, subsequently putting up walls, and finally 
putting on the roof. No sensible person would think 
for a moment that a builder could reverse this process 
and begin with the roof and finally put in the founda- 
tion. A large number of the structures in the develop- 
ing embryo which seem to be parallel to the structures 
found in the lower orders, are of this character. But 
side by side with these facts exist other facts or other 
embryonic conditions for which no place can be found 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 173 


in the theory of recapitulation. I quote again from 
Sedgwick: 


“Examples of embryonic characters which are not found 
in the adults of other vertebrates are the following: At a 
certain stage of development the central nervous system has 
the form of a groove in the skin; there is a communication 
at the hind end of the body between the neural and alimen- 
tary canals; the mouth aperture at the first has the form of 
an elongated slit; the growing end of the Wolffian duct is in 
some groups continuous with the ectoderm; and the retina 
is at one stage a portion of the wall of the medullary canal. 
In the embryos of the lower vertebrates many other instances 
of the same interesting character might be mentioned.” 
CHncyc. Bret, Vol: IX, p, $22.) 


I think we shall agree with Miall, in his address 
before the British Association, in 1897, where he says: 
“The best facts of the recapitulationist are striking 
and valuable, but they are much rarer than the thor- 
oughgoing recapitulationist admits; he has picked out 
all the big strawberries and put them at the top of the 
basket ” (Proceedings, 1897; p. 682). 

William His, who may almost be called the father 
of human embryology, has given us some of the most 
sensible remarks concerning this matter of embryonic 
development: 


“In the entire series of forms which a developing organ- 
ism runs through, each form is the necessary antecedent 
step of the following. If the embryo is to reach the com- 
plicated end-forms, it must pass, step by step, through the 
simpler ones. Each step of the series is the physiological 
consequence of the preceding stage and the necessary condi- 
tion of the following. Jumps, or short cuts of the develop- 
ment process, are unknown in the physiological process of 
development. If embryonic forms are the inevitable prece- 
dents of the mature forms, because the more complicated 
forms must pass through the simpler, we can understand the 


Se 


174 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


fact that paleontological forms are so often like the em- 
byronic forms of to-day. The paleontological forms are 
embryonal, because they have remained at the lower stage 
of development, and the present embryos must pass also 
through lower stages in order to reach the higher. But it 
is by no means necessary for the later, higher forms to pass 
through embryonal forms because their ancestors have once 
existed in this condition” (quoted by Morgan, Evolution 
and Adaptation, p. 71). 


Accordingly, Professor His labels Haeckel’s bioge- 
netic “law” as “a mere by-path,” and says that it 
is “‘ not necessary at all for the explanation of the facts 
of embryology.” 

Oscar Hertwig also says: “‘ We must drop the ex- 
pression ‘ repetition of the form of extinct forefathers,’ 
and put in its place the repetition of forms which are 
necessary for organic development, and lead from the 
simple to the complex.” This is sensible and scien- 
tifically accurate. 

P. C. Mitchell, in his article on “ Evolution ” in the 
Encyclopedia Britannica, speaks of the change which 
has come about in scientific opinion regarding this 
matter of recapitulation. He says: 


“The most striking general change has been against see- 
ing in the facts of ontogeny [embryonic development] any 
direct evidence as to phylogeny [ancestral history]. The 
general proposition as to a parallelism between individual 
and ancestral development is no doubt indisputable; but ex- 
tended knowledge of the very different ontogenetic histories 
of closely allied forms has led us to a much fuller concep- 
tion of the mode in which stages in embroynic and larval 
history have been modified in relation to their surroundings, 
and to a consequent reluctance to attach detailed importance 
to the embryological argument for evolution.” (Vol, X, 
p. 35.) 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 175 


The list of quotations which might be given to show 
that conservative scientists have given up any de- 
pendence upon the recapitulation theory, would be a 
long one. One more of this character will suffice. 


“ The critical comments of such embryologists as O. Hert- 
wig, Keibel, and Vialleton, indeed, have practically torn to 
shreds the aforesaid fundamental biogenetic law. Its almost 
unanimous abandonment has left considerably at a loss those 
investigators who sought in the structure of organisms the 
key to their remote origin or to their relationships.” (Sct. 
Amer. Mo., Feb., 1921, p. 121.) 


It is an indication of the reactionary tendencies of 
the modern propagandists of the evolution doctrine, to 
find Vernon Kellogg saying that this recapitulation 
theory “is one of the strongest of the evidences of 
evolution ” (Evolution the Way of Man, p. 54; 1924). 


VI 


A brief series of illustrations drawn from modern 
industrial life, will serve to make several points in this 
discussion more clear. 

The wheelbarrow may be spoken of as the most 
“ primitive ” of vehicles. Of course, there is no his- 
torical evidence to show that it was really the first 
form of vehicle, any more than there is evidence to 
show that the monorail form of railway was the first 
of its kind. But the wheelbarrow is the simplest of 
the vehicles, in point of structure, and its chief charac- 
teristic is that it has but one wheel. The bicycle is 
next higher in the scale, the two-wheeled cart being of 
the same grade or stage of development, though quite 
independent in its “ evolution’ from the one-wheeled 
form. The four-wheeled buggy may be placed next in 
the scale, though various forms of tricycle indicate di- 


176 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


vergent forms which ceased to progress any further. 
The buggy, however, grades up into the automobile, 
and then into the six-wheeled locomotive, from that 
into the eight-wheeled, and lastly into the sixteen- 
wheeled type. The latter may be regarded as having 
evolved from the one-wheeled type, the changes shown 
in the size and character of its wheels and other parts 
being exactly what one would naturally expect, in view 
of its greatly changed environment and habits. In- 
deed, in each case mentioned above, we see a very 
remarkable adaptation in all the parts of the machine 
to the uses for which it is employed. 

But now, if we look into the methods of manufac- 
ture of any of these machines, we shall find that they 
closely parallel each other in their building, just as the 
various kinds of animals parallel each other in their 
embryonic development. And the reason is the same 
in each of these two groups of cases, namely, efficiency. 
These various kinds of machines are built (when 
manufactured on a large scale) in the most efficient 
and the most economical way; and similarly we must 
suppose that the embryos of the horse, the chick, the 
guinea pig, or man are each built in the best and most 
efficient manner possible, considering the final form, or 
the end-product. ‘The few cases where the process 
seems to be of a round-about or circuitous character 
and not as direct as we might wish, are doubtless the 
most direct and efficient method, if we could under- 
stand all the facts. To think otherwise would be to 
assume a knowledge and a wisdom superior to that dis- 
played by “nature,” or really by the God behind 
nature. 

If we were to go the rounds of the factories where 
the various kinds of automobiles are manufactured, we 


THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO 177 


should find much the same methods employed in them 
all. At a certain stage in their development, one can- 
not clearly distinguish between a Ford or a Rolls- 
Royce or a Cadillac, this resemblance being carried 
out in hundreds of details in the development of the 
various parts. All this is exactly parallel to the many 
ways in which the developing embryo of man resem- 
bles that of the horse or the elepkant; and is for the 
very same reason, namely, efficiency. The men who 
are building automobiles, no matter what the make, are 
each trying to build them in the most direct and most 
efficient manner which they can devise, considering the 
end-products which they have in mind. And in the 
earlier stages of the growth of these machines the Ford 
resembles other cars much more closely than it does 
in its completed form, just as the first stages of the 
human embryo resemble the corresponding stages of 
the dog or the horse more closely than do the mature 
forms. 


VII 

This is about all there really is to the long notorious 
argument for evolution based on the recapitulation 
theory. This theory started when the facts of embry- 
ology were very imperfectly known; it was developed 
and promoted on an artificial arrangement of the fos- 
sils which was alleged to harmonize with the embryonic 
development of the modern individual. It has now 
collapsed with the exposure of the artificiality of this 
geological arrangement of the fossils, and with a more 
accurate and complete knowledge of the embryonic 
development, which shows that the latter does not cor- 
respond with the geological series even when the fos- 
sils have been arranged artificially to show as much 


178 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


resemblance as possible. In short, the recapitulation 
theory as an argument for organic evolution was 
founded on ignorance and deceptive comparisons; it 
has now outlived its popularity among those evolution- 
ists who feel obliged to depend henceforth upon honest 
arguments to promote their theory. To continue to 
use the recapitulation argument as it was used by 
Haeckel and Darwin, can no longer be regarded as an 
indication of intellectual honesty. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Agar, W. E., Cytology; 1920. 

Davidson, Percy E., The Recapitulation Theory; 1914. 

McEwen, R. S., A Textbook of Vertebrate Embryology; 1923. 

Sedgwick, Adam, Embryology, in Encycl. Brit.; Vol. 1X, pp. 
314-329. 

Weismann A., The Germ Plasm; English Translation; 1893. 

Wilson, E. B., The Cell; 1900. 


Vill 
THE BLOODY LADDER 
I 


URING the period when pure Darwinism had 
1) its vogue, which may be defined as the latter 
decades of the nineteenth century and the 

first decade of the twentieth, Darwin’s doctrine of 
natural selection or survival of the fittest seemed to 
have accomplished two very definite things. It seemed 
to have destroyed completely the many evidences of 
design in nature which had formerly been pointed to 
by theologians and students of philosophy as proofs of 
purposive planning on the part of the God of nature. 
It not only destroyed these supposed evidences of de- 
sign; but it substituted for the design argument an 
explanation of the adaptations in nature which was so 
heartless, so full of all those qualities which we regard 
as wicked and detestable, that to attribute such a 
method of creating the world to an intelligent Creator 
necessarily changed completely the character of such 
a Creator. Darwinian evolution never properly proved 
that materialism is true; that is, it never properly 
proved that God could not have made the world by 
the process of organic evolution. Quite evidently a 
creative Intelligence could make the world by such a 
process; but to believe in such a process would neces- 
sarily change completely our ideas of the kind of 
Creator behind nature. To say nothing of the record 

179 


180 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


in the Bible, it is impossible for a rational mind to be- 
lieve that an all-wise, all-powerful, God of supreme 
kindliness and love would ever have produced the 
world by such a cruel, heartless process; least of all 
that He could have produced man, the crowning tri- 
umph of this work, by such a long-drawn out ordeal 
of cruelty, torture and villainy. 

Thus, in addition to the strictly scientific arguments 
which will be presented in the following pages against 
the theory of natural selection, we must here for a little 
while consider some rational and moral objections to 
this theory. And surely it is a very narrow view of 
the universe which would forbid our bringing in these 
studies here as a part of our general argument. There 
are many things in the realm of morals and philosophy 
which are just as sure and just as easily understood as 
anything that we can derive from biology or geology. 
And it is perfectly proper that we should allow these 
considerations a large place in our full consideration 
of these problems. ‘The stench arising from a putrid 
carcass will inform us of decomposition, without any 
elaborate knowledge of organic chemistry; and the 
beauty of a sunset can be appreciated without any 
profound knowledge of optics or of meteorology. In 
the same way our intuitive knowledge of justice, and 
truth, and benevolence may serve as safer guides in 
attempting to read the mysterious messages of nature, 
than will our conclusions based on such studies as 
those presented by Malthus, On Population, or those 
made so popular in the Origin of Species. 


II 


The merest tyro in the study of organic evolution 
can see that the doctrine of survival of the fittest, or 


THE BLOODY LADDER 181 


natural selection, makes some of the most morally ob- 
jectionable characteristics manifested by animals and 
men the ladder by which all true progress has been 
attained. In other words, those qualities among the 
lower races of men, or among the animals, which we 
rightly regard as objectionable and blameworthy, such 
as selfishness, vindictiveness, and a heartless disregard 
of the feelings and desires of others, have been made 
by Darwin and his followers the chief factor in their 
scheme of organic evolution. And although pure Dar- 
winism is not now as popular as it once was as a 
method of explaining the causes of evolution, yet it 
still holds such a large place in any scheme of evolu- 
tion that it may rightly be considered here in this con- 
nection, and may well be subjected to all the scrutiny 
and the critical analysis which we can bring to bear 
upon it. 
Huxley illustrates this point for us, when he says: 


“For his successful progress as far as the savage state, 
man has been largely indebted to those qualities which he 
shares with the ape and the tiger.” 


John Fiske is equally candid in saying that, accord- 
ing to the theory of natural selection, nature has put 
a high premium on these cruel and heartless charac- 
teristics, by making them the bloody ladder by which 
the race has ascended to its present condition. For 
he says: 


“Those most successful primitive men from whom civil- 
ized peoples are descended must have excelled in treachery 
and cruelty, as in quickness of wit and strength of will.” 


On another occasion Fiske has given us a more gen- 


182 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


eral statement of the problem which we are here con- 
sidering: 


“Theology has much to say about original sin. This or- 
iginal sin is neither more nor less than the brute-inheritance 
which every man carries with him.” 


Another statement from this same point of view, this 
time from J. Arthur Thomson, will help us to see the 
true inwardness of this doctrine of the struggle for 
existence: 


“Tone it down as you will, the fact remains that Darwin- 
ism regards animals as going upstairs, in a struggle for indi- 
vidual ends, often on the corpses of their fellows, often by 
a blood-and-iron competition, often by a strange mixture of 
blood and cunning, in which each looks out for himself and 
extinction besets the hindmost.” 


A. R. Wallace, who gives us this quotation in his 
World of Life, expresses the hope that Thomson has 
somewhat toned down this harsh view of the struggle 
for existence. But we should remember that Huxley 
spoke even more emphatically regarding the essential 
cruelty of nature and all the biological processes by 
which evolution in his view has been accomplished. 
And the point which we shall endeavour to make in 
this connection is that this view of the fundamental 
processes of nature zs a real libel on God, the author 
of nature, who, if He were a God of love and also all- 
powerful and all-wise, could never be supposed to have 
brought about the development of organic forms in any 
such hideously cruel fashion. In addition to this moral 
indictment, we shall see that there are very grave 
scientific objections to the theory, so grave, in fact, 
that most modern scientists have long since repudiated 


THE BLOODY LADDER 183 


natural selection as in any material way having con- 
tributed to the development of organic forms. 

I am not here concerned with the larger or primary 
problem of the origin of evil, that is, with the origin 
of the physical and moral evil in the universe. This 
problem has been touched upon by the present writer 
elsewhere; though the subject is not by any means a 
new one for Christian philosophy. In passing, it may 
be noted here that most evolutionists hold matter to 
be eternal, and to have an inherent quality of unman- 
ageableness about it which God Himself is not compe- 
tent to deal with. This doctrine of a finite God, as 
it is usually called, struggling to do the best He can 
under the circumstances, has been represented by such 
men as William James, J. S. Mill, F. C. S. Schiller, 
Henri Bergson, and others. We need not pause here 
to consider how utterly contrary to Christianity such 
a system really is. We are here concerned with the 
moral and religious implications of natural selection as 
the method of accounting for the origin and develop- 
ment of all the forms of animal and plant life. 

F, W. Nietzsche (1844-1900), the notorious philoso- 
pher of the Superman, was one of the most outspoken 
in his bald glorification of the bloody ladder of natural 
selection as the only means of progress. Not only did 
he glorify war as the chief means by which individuals 
and states progress to higher stages of existence; he 
also tried to throw a halo of glory around those quali- 
ties of mind and character which for two thousand 
years have been considered the very antithesis of 
Christianity. Nietzsche was unsparing in his scorn of 
all those characteristics of mind and character which 
were taught to the world by the lowly Nazarene. 


184 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


Many statements, like the following, could be culled 
from his writings: 


“ Such ideas as mercy, and pity, and charity are pernicious, 
for they mean a transference of power from the strong to 
the weak, whose proper business it is to serve the strong. 
Remember that self-sacrifice and brotherliness and love are 
not real moral instincts at all, but merely manufactured com- 
punctions to keep you from being your true self. Remember 
that man is essentially selfish.” 


Elsewhere he tells us that “ Egoism is the prime 
characteristic of the noble soul;” and in his famous 
genealogy of morals he divides mankind into just two 
classes,—masters and slaves; he has one kind of 
morality for the one, and a very different system of 
“slave morality ” for the others; and the only use 
which he has for the slave caste is to serve as useful 
tools for the masters in their unconditioned will to 
power. 

Again, he says: 


“Here is the new law, O my brethren, which I promul- 
gate unto you! Become hard; for creative spirits are hard. 
And you must find a supreme blessedness in imposing the 
mark of your hand, in inscribing your will, upon thousands 
and thousands, as on soft wax.” 


We must admit that Nietzsche was at least bold and 
consistent in applying the ethics of Darwinism all the 
way up the line, even to the ethical life of man in both 
his private and his international relations. Huxley, 
however, was not willing to follow the doctrine of 
natural selection thus to the end of the road. He 
balked when he was confronted with applying the doc- 
trine of the struggle for existence to man in his social 
and national relations. He taught that by the forma- 


THE BLOODY LADDER 185 


tion of communities or nations a new order of things 
came into existence, the laws and ethics of which are 
wholly different from those of the ‘cosmic order,” 
which is the term used to designate the order of things 
prevailing under the long upward climb of mankind 
through the struggle for existence. In other words, 
in order for men to live together in anything like peace 
and quietness, co-operation and altruism must be the 
tules of the social order; and such a code of ethics is ob- 
viously exactly contrary to the code hitherto prevailing, 
according to Darwinian evolution. Neither Huxley nor 
any of his followers have shown why this ethical somer- 
sault, this complete reversal of the ethics of the “ cos- 
mic order,” should have taken place. Indeed, it is 
hard to understand why a code of ethics which evolved 
a subman from an ape, and further developed this 
subman into a Menes, or a Hammurabi, or a Julius 
Caesar, should not be expected in our day to develop 
a race of supermen, a /a Nietzsche. No doubt Huxley 
had learned by experience that it was more agreeable 
if others around him practiced altruism and the Chris- 
tian virtues rather than the selfish code of a constant 
struggle for supremacy and for survival even at the 
expense of others. And so he introduced his reversal 
of all those principles by which mankind had lifted it- 
self above the plane of the beasts of the field. 

There was no flaw in the logic by which the Prussian 
militarists appealed to Darwinian biology as the sanc- 
tion for their international ruffianism, in seeking to 
live up to their motto: “Deutschland tiber alles.” 
But he has only an infantile sense of logic who would 
attempt to equate either of these systems with the 
sublime ethics which has been taught us by the 
Prophet of Galilee. If the latter has come to us from 


186 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


the God of the universe, the former is a libel on the 
methods by which this same God created the plants 
and animals of our world and now sustains their 
existence. 


Il 


George Paulin has attacked the theory from another 
angle in a book, entitled No Struggle for Existence, 
No Natural Selection (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh; 
1908). He rightly charges that Darwin’s theory was 
an attack against the concept of a benevolent Creator 
and a designing Intelligence. But his chief charge is 
against the picture of a pitiless struggle throughout the 
organic world, which he claims is not true. Darwin 
had claimed that we do not know in any single instance 
just what checks are used by Nature to keep a certain 
kind of animal from multiplying unduly and over- 
running the earth; and he assumed that it was by the 
limits of the food supply, and by the competition, fierce 
and perpetual, for food and for the opportunity to pro- 
create, that the numbers were kept down. Darwin 
and his followers had always represented nature as 
“ careful of the type,” but absolutely “ careless of the 
single life.” In other words, Darwinism had always 
represented nature as wholly indifferent to the happi- 
ness of the individual animal (or even the individual 
man), and as contemplating only the slow, long-drawn 
out evolutionary process, the individuals being con- 
stantly sacrificed on the mirage of an alleged “ far-off 
divine event” toward which the whole creation was 
supposed to be moving by an ever tantalizing asym- 
ptote, while present misery is always the lot of every- 
thing that lives. 

All this, says Paulin, is wrong, and a heartless libel 


THE BLOODY LADDER 187 


on the God of nature. He shows that starvation does 
not act as the check upon any type of life, but that 
various other checks, in the way of instincts, have been 
provided, by which the numbers of any particular 
species of animal, whether carnivorous or herbivorous, 
are kept within bounds and about at a constant num- 
ber from year to year and from century to century. 
Even such animals as the lion and the tiger do not 
perish from mutual slaughter or from starvation; their 
numbers are kept constant and within bounds by 
other checks which involve no such wide-spread suffer- 
ing. ‘The precautionary checks are different for the 
different kinds of animals; but in all cases the balanced 
economy of nature is maintained without any such 
fierce struggle for existence as Darwin had pictured as 
the universal lot of all organic life. Death is the com- 
mon lot of all living things, in this world of sin; but 
the death that comes to the vast majority of animals 
is quick and almost without suffering. And the revolt- 
ing picture of nature which we get from Malthus and 
Darwin is not true. 


IV 


Still further, it is quite unreasonable to suppose that 
a relentless struggle for air and sunlight among plants, 
or for food and various other opportunities among 
animals, could tend toward a higher or more elevated 
type, as a general result. There is hardship and suf- 
fering; there is a modicum of competition both among 
plants and among animals. But such conditions never 
tend toward greater symmetry or larger size, nor do 
they ever tend toward the elevation of the type sub- 
ject to these conditions. On the contrary, hardship, 
privation, and the struggle for existence must always 


188 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


tend toward degeneracy and degradation. Such condi- 
tions might be supposed to have produced the sneak- 
ing, cowardly coyote out of the wolf, the Indian ele- 
phant (Elephas indicus) out of the much larger mam- 
moth (E. primigenius) or imperial elephant (E. im- 
perator), or the modern hippopotamus (H. amphibius) 
out of the Pleistocene form (H. major), just as the 
dwarfed, scrub pines and other trees near the timber 
line have been produced by their hard environment 
out of the kinds found lower down the mountain side. 
In short, hardship and unsuitable environment do not 
develop, they degrade in every single instance; and 
any philosophy of organic life which reverses this uni- 
versal law of nature, and tries to evolve the higher and 
more beautiful and more complex by means of hard- 
ship and an unsuitable environment, must be false. 


V 

In his ostentatiously candid manner Darwin ad- 
mitted that, “If it could be demonstrated that any 
complex organ existed, which could not possibly have 
been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifica- 
tions, my theory would absolutely break down” 
(Origin, 5th ed., 1869, p. 227). Two men were promi- 
nent in taking him at his word while he was yet alive, 
St. George Mivart and Herbert Spencer; while since 
those latter decades of the nineteenth century a great 
chorus of voices has arisen against the theory of 
natural selection, until, just before he died, John Bur- 
roughs declared that Darwin had been “ shorn of his 
selection theories as completely as Samson was shorn 
of his locks” (Atlantic Monthly, August, 1920; p. 
237). 

Mivart especially emphasized two points, first that 


THE BLOODY LADDER 189 


“natural selection utterly fails to account for the con- 
servation and development of the minute and rudi- 
mentary beginnings, the slight and infinitesimal com- 
mencements of structures, however useful those struc- 
tures may afterwards become” (The Genesis of Spe- 
cies, p. 35). This failure of the theory to account for 
the beginnings of organs and structures has since been 
dwelt upon by many scientists, de Vries ending his best 
known work with the words, quoted from another, that 
the theory might “ explain the survival of the fittest, 
but it could never explain the arrival of the fittest.” 
The other argument made by Mivart had to do with 
the many similar organs and structures which must 
have been developed quite independently of each 
other. Mivart, indeed, did not consider this latter 
point as telling against the general theory of organic 
evolution, only against Darwin’s special theory of 
natural selection; but in Chapter VI of the present 
work, I have extended the argument so as to include 
the whole theory. 

Spencer’s objections chiefly consisted in the enum- 
eration of structures the origin of which it seems evi- 
dent cannot be explained by natural selection. Among 
other examples, he dwelt upon the impossibility of 
accounting for the origin and development of co-ordi- 
nated sets of structures, declaring that it was incred- 
ible that these related or interdependent parts should 
vary simultaneously in the same required manner, as 
a mere matter of chance, as postulated by Darwin’s 
selection theories. Spencer was not arguing against 
the general theory of organic evolution, but against 
natural selection and in favour of the inheritance of 
acquired characters as the only adequate explanation. 
And he summed up the case in the oft-quoted words: 


1909 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


“Close contemplation of the facts impresses me more ~ 
strongly than ever with the two alternatives—either 
there has been inheritance of acquired characters, or 
there has been no evolution” (The Inadequacy of 
Natural Selection, p. 20). In Germany, Haeckel took 
practically the same position, while in America, E. D. 
Cope and others likewise contended strongly for the 
Lamarckian ‘“‘ factor,’ as it came to be called; and 
this group among biologists has since been known as 
the Neo-Lamarckian school. 

But August Weismann in Germany, and Wallace 
and Lankester in England, took up the cause of natural 
selection with great zeal. The former was the pro- 
pounder of the theory of the continuity of the germ- 
plasm, in the light of which theory (based on an al- 
most iron-clad argument derived from the behaviour 
of the germ-cells) it appeared impossible for any of 
the effects of the environment to change the germ- 
plasm, which according to this view of the case passes 
along in an essentially immortal stream from genera- 
tion to generation, quite unaffected by any influences 
which may be brought to bear upon the body. Ac- 
cording to Weismann and these Neo-Darwinians, in- 
heritance does not take place from the body of the 
parent to that of the child; but the child inherits from 
the parent germ-cell, the body of the parent being 
merely the carrier, the nurse, as it were, of these self- 
perpetuating germ-cells, which are thus held in trust 
for the coming generations, as Wilson expresses it. 

The followers of Weismann out-Darwined Darwin 
in their stand for natural selection as the sole and only 
sufficient cause of organic evolution; and they scorn- 
fully demanded one single well-authenticated example 
of the inheritance of acquired characters which would 


THE BLOODY LADDER 191 


stand close investigation. J. Arthur Thomson devotes 
nearly a hundred pages of his treatise on Heredity to 
the discussion of this phase of the question, and con- 
cludes that there is no reliable scientific evidence in 
favour of the inheritance of acquired characters. He 
Says, In summary of his argument: 


“The question resolves itself into a matter of fact: Have 
we any concrete evidence to warrant us believing that definite 
modifications are ever, as such or in any representative de- 
gree, transmitted? It appears to us that we have not. But 
to say dogmatically that such transmission is impossible, is 
unscientific. In regard to that, the truly scientific position 
is one of active skepticism (thatige Skepsis)” (p. 242). 


In other words, these Neo-Darwinians are from Mis- 
souri; they want to be shown some well-authenticated 
examples. And in spite of all the noisy claims of 
Kammerer, Redfieid, and others, they remain still very 
much unconvinced. Indeed, their skepticism has be- 
come so active that they can listen to alleged examples 
only with considerable signs of impatience. Well 
trained physicists and even intelligent mechanics have 
developed the same “active skepticism” toward the 
subject of perpetual motion; and for the same reasons. 

Accordingly, we have here exhibited what some 
people not sympathetic with natural science have 
called the modern scientific civil war. On the one side, 
Paul Kammerer of Vienna, and Prof. E. W. MacBride 
of England, with a small but determined following, 
have pledged themselves to the theory of the inheri- 
tance of acquired characters; and they ask their op- 
ponents how natural selection is going to start a single 
organ of a single organic type; they then follow this 
question up with the taunt that, if it cannot start any- 
thing, what is the use of invoking its supposed ability 


192 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


to improve the structures after they have all been 
built? On the other hand, such men as Sir E. Ray 
Lankester, J. Arthur Thomson, Edwin Grant Conklin, 
and Henry Fairfield Osborn retort that they are willing 
to believe in the “‘Lamarckian factor” of acquired 
characters whenever any good, clear, unambiguous ex- 
amples are produced; but until that time they will con- 
tinue to depend upon natural selection as the chief, if 
not the only, factor in organic evolution. 


VI 

However, it is in reality a three-angled fight, another 
variation of the eternal triangle. For the Mendelians 
are also in the ring; indeed they seem to be carrying 
off almost all the honours. They stand for the origin { 
of species by “ jumps” or mutations; and they are 
very enthusiastic in bringing forward and explaining 
their specimens which they have manufactured, so to 
speak, to prove their contentions. They would like 
to believe in the inheritance of acquired characters, if 
they could only see any way whereby the effects of the 
environment or of use and disuse could become regis- 
tered in the chromosomes, and thus be passed along 
the stream of the germ-plasm in heredity. But as well 
authenticated examples are still lacking, they fall back 
upon some unknown method by which the chromo- 
somes may become modified, and thus these modifica- 
tions get within the charmed circle of the germ-plasm 
and become a part of the future inheritance. But 
some Mendelians have little or no use for the theory 
of natural selection. In their estimation, this theory 
was founded on many mistaken ideas, and is now of 
little scientific interest, except historically,—Darwin’s 
theory helped to make the general theory of organic 


THE BLOODY LADDER 193 


evolution ‘a going concern,” as J. Arthur Thomson 
expresses it. They respect it for the good it has done. 

The present attitude toward Darwinism among most 
biologists in America is well represented by the writ- 
ings of Thomas Hunt Morgan, of Columbia. In Eng- 
land, William Bateson is one of the leaders of the 
Mendelians; but there are many others scarcely sec- 
ond to him both in England and on the Continent. In 
fact the Mendelians are so nearly masters of the entire 
field that the voices raised in revolt against them are 
weak and timorous; though once in a while someone 
like E. W. MacBride is heard shouting that Mendelism 
has led the evolutionary hosts into a cul-de-sac 
(Science Progress, January, 1922). 

An admirable statement of the modern biological at- 
titude is given by Robert Heath Lock, in his Varia- 
tion, Heredity, and Evolution, London, 1920; the third 
chapter of which deals specifically with natural selec- 
tion. He adduces many strong arguments against the 
validity of this theory; but the following may be taken 
as a summary of his attitude: 


“No one questions the validity of natural selection as a 
means of exterminating types which are unfitted for their 
environment—there is clearly a tendency for the fittest types 
to survive, once they have come into existence. Nor can 
there be any doubt that species in general are well adapted 
to the conditions which their environments present. But 
when this is admitted, it does not necessarily follow that 
natural selection, directing the accumulation of minute dif- 
ferences, has been the method by which these adapted forms 
have originated” (p. 61). 


Dr. J. C. Willis, in the sixth chapter of his recent 
volume, Age and Area (1922), has presented with 
much force several of the well-known objections to 


194 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


the theory of natural selection. Various other modern 
works might be mentioned which have effectually dis- 
posed of natural selection as being in any sense a vera 
causa of organic development. Indeed, it may be 
truthfully said that any one who in this year 1924 still 
stands up for natural selection as an explanation of 
organic evolution, is too hopelessly behind the times 
to be reached with any further arguments of mine. 
However, it will not be amiss to present two or three ~ 
more very recent statements. 

A. G. Tansley, at the Liverpool meeting of the 
British Association in 1923, declared: ‘In regard to 
a multitude of characters, there is not only no proof, 
but not the slightest reason to suppose that they have 
now, or ever did have, any survival value at all.” | 

At the Cincinnati meeting of the American Associa- 
tion, December, 1923, J. Playfair McMurrich, the re- 
tiring President, said regarding natural selection: 


“The biological world of to-day does not ascribe to that 
factor the importance that Darwin gave it. Its action can- 
not be denied, it is self-evident to any observer of Nature’s 
ways who finds ‘that of fifty seeds she often brings but one 
to bear.’ It plays an important role in the suppression of 
the unfit rather than in the survival of the fittest, but it can 
act only on variations sufficiently pronounced to determine 
life or death. It has been shown in several cases that what 
seem trivial variations may, under certain conditions, lead 
to fatal results; but even admitting these, it is difficult to 
believe that many of the minute differences that distinguish 
species have selective value.” (Science, Jan. 25, 1924; Sup- 
plement.) 


Here is another declaration from a very high Eng- 
lish authority: 


“Natural selection is a theory of the origin of adapta- 
tions, and in my judgment there is ample evidence that spe- 


THE BLOODY LADDER 195 


cific differences are not as a rule differences of adaptation. 
Therefore natural selection does not explain specific differ- 
ences. It is recognized now that in the cultivation of ani- 
mals and plants the marked and constant characters which 
distinguish races are not, as Darwin believed, the gradual 
result of continued selection, but are mutations which have 
arisen spontaneously in definite form, not by successive 
stages. Does any one believe now that the rose comb in 
fowls is the result of a series of stages due to artificial selec- 
tion?” (Jj. T. Cunningham, Nature, March 3, 1923.) 


This author makes reference to a book of his own, 
as a justification of his opinion and as showing why 
he considers “the theory of natural selection to be 
obsolete.”” He goes on to say that this “ conclusion, 
of course, is not disproved by the fact that many 
naturalists still believe in the theory in America, and 
elsewhere. But there are specialists in evolution, as 
well as in systematic zoology and in other branches; 
and I venture to say that few who have made a special 
and- practical study of evolution, and are well ac- 
quainted with recent progress in that study, have 
much faith in natural selection.” (J0., id.) 


VII 


We may safely conclude from all this that a great 
idol has tumbled down, an idol which while it stood 
on its feet was clamorously praised and worshipped 
by more atheists and more enemies of the Bible than 
ever bowed before the ancient Baal or Apollo. Even 
in its ruined state we see belated reverence still ad- 
dressed to the place in biology where it once stood; 
and belated hymns are still being chanted for it by 
such people as the Marxian Socialists and the teachers 
in the grammar schools and the high schools of Amer- 
ica. The psychologists are still using miniatures of it 


196 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


in the classroom, while the ‘“‘ progressive ” theologians 
still keep on parroting the eulogies in its praise which 
they learned from the hod-carriers of natural science, 
when the latter were first constructing its shrine a half- 
century ago. 

But for the scholars of the world, the ones who per- 
sist in thinking for themselves and who form their con- 
clusions only on facts and still more facts, the niche 
is vacant where once stood that golden “ Anti-Genesis,”’ 
as Haeckel used to call it. And while some are sor- 
rowfully groping around for something to put in the 
vacant place, the more reverent are directing their 
eyes upward to that inscription in the heavens, “ In 


the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Bishop, R. B., Evolution Criticised; 1918. 

Conklin, E. G., Heredity and Environment; 1921. 

Dennert, E., At the Deathbed of Darwinism; English Trans- 
lation; 1904. 

Fairhurst, A., Organic Evolution Considered; 1913. 

Lock, R. H., Variation, Heredity, and Evolution; 1920. 

Mivart, St. G., The Genesis of Species; 1871. 

Morgan, T. H., A Critique of the Theory of Evolution; 1916. 

Paulin, George, No Struggle for Existence; 1908. 

Spencer, Herbert, The Inadequacy of Natural Selection; 
1893. 

Thomson, J. A., Heredity; 1919. 

Wallace, A. R., Darwinism; 1889. 

The World of Life; 1911. 
Willey, Arthur, Convergence in Evolution; 1911. 
Willis, J. C. (and others), Age and Area; 1922, 


——————S 


TX 
UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS? 
I 


y E have reached the conclusion of our argu- 
ment. But in summing up the verdict 
which we are to bring in, it may be well 
to On briefly at the theory of evolution i in its broader 
aspects, what is termed cosmic evolution, a theory 
which designs to explain the development of stellar 
mist or planetesimals into organic life and the mind 
of a Newton or a Kelvin. For cosmic evolution un- 
dertakes to explain with its formula everything from 
the nebula to the Sermon on the Mount and the strug- 
gle for the League of Nations. 

But natural science must not be held responsible 
for any such mechanistic philosophy as that. Indeed, 
on every point where science can come to grips with 
such a philosophy, the verdict of cold fact and reason 
is overwhelmingly against it. For example, let us take 
the nebular hypothesis of Kant and La Place. ‘ Prob- 
ably no philosophic conception has ever received such 
universal acceptance by the modern world as the 
Laplacian theory. Yet it is not true. It has been 
conclusively shown by Professors Chamberlin and 
Moulton that the theory breaks down at every point 
where attacked by present-day physics and kinetics. 
The conception of an originally molten globe must also 
be discarded.” (H. L. Fairchild, Scientific Monthly, 
July, 1924; p. 95.) 





197 


198 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


And the verdict of strict science must be that none 
of the substitute theories of the origin of the solar sys- 
tem are any better. Certain general facts, however, 
seem to be in process of determination. Astronomers 
seem agreed that the entire universe is definitely 
limited in extent, and that it consists of some 1,500 
million suns, with a total diameter of about three hun- 
dred thousand light-years. Of course some will have 
it that a serial order can be arranged for the stars, this 
serial order being supposed to represent the various 
stages of their development. But all are now agreed 
that whatever explanation we adopt for the origin of 
the solar system must be in accord with the behaviour 
of all the stars scattered throughout the universe. In . 
other words, the explanation which we adopt for the 
origin of our solar system must be in accord with uni- 
versal cosmic laws. 

Yet J. H. Jeans, in a recent address before the Royal 
Institution, London, tells us that astronomy knows 
absolutely nothing of any other system of worlds 
throughout the whole universe which resembles our 
solar system in even the slightest degree. He says: 
“Not a single system is known outside our solar sys- 
tem which resembles it in the least degree” (Nature, 
March 1, 1924; p. 337). Jeans goes on to explain the 
bearings of the so-called tidal theory upon this prob- 
lem of the origin of our solar system; and he shows 
that if we can assume several arbitrary and peculiar 
conditions we can explain the probable formation of 
the sun and its accompanying system of planets with 
their satellites. But he admits that this theory is not 
to be taken too seriously, and that it is “ far too early 
to claim that it can fully explain the origin of our sys- 
tem.’ He concludes by saying that the claim to con- 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 199 


sideration which this tidal theory presents ‘‘is rather 
that, so far as I know, it provides the only theory of 
that origin which is not open to obvious and insuper- 
able objections ” (p. 340). 

But Harlow Shapley denies that we can recognize 
any signs of stellar evolution among the stars, and 
there is no higher authority in the world on this par- 
ticular phase of astronomy. 


“Tn still another way can we make valuable use of the 
long base-line provided by the remote clusters. A consider- 
able analysis of the distribution of spectral types among the 
giant stars shows no measurable difference for near and dis- 
tant globular clusters. This strongly suggests, of course, 
that the nearest systems are not appreciably more advanced 
in their evolution; but because of the finite velocity of light 
and the great differences in distance, they are, in our records, 
nearly 200,000 years older than the farthest ones. With 
these globular clusters we can, in effect, examine the process 
of stellar evolution throughout an interval of 2,000 centuries. 
We find no evidence of change in that interval of time.” 
(Harlow Shapley, in an address before the British Astro- 
nomical Association, on May 31, 1922; Nature, October 21 
and 28, 1922.) 


This is a splendid testimony, and it ought to silence 
all those noisy near-scientists who keep telling us that 
astronomy shows us many other universes in actual 
process of stellar evolution. 

We may dismiss all speculations regarding the origin 
of our solar system, because, to use the expressive 
words of Thomas Chalmers, “‘ We have no experience 
in the creation of worlds.” Such speculations are quite 
as useless as materialistic efforts to account for the or- 
igin of life on our globe. No matter how much we 
seek to dignify our fancies with imposing titles, and 
no matter how many names of illustrious scientists 


200 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


may seemingly support one or another cosmic specula- 
tion, they are always at best but childish fancies and 
have absolutely no scientific value. If the philosophic 
conception of creation be sound, we can never by 
studying the present-day behaviour of anything dis- 
cover the method of its origin. 


II 


And we are driven to this identical conclusion when 
we begin to study the problem of the origin of the 
chemical elements. The new science of radioactivity, 
with the many studies in physical chemistry which 
have developed under its inspiration, has shown that 


there is a real gamut of the elements, running from . 


the lowest or lightest, hydrogen, up to the heaviest, 
uranium, which becomes number 92 of the series. 
Whether or not helium can be supposed to be built up 
of four hydrogen atoms, and the other elements also 
be built up in a similar way, is merely a matter of 
speculation. Science knows nothing whatever of any 
such synthetic composition or evolution of the ele- 
ments. But in contrast we do know definitely of the 
disintegration of the elements. Certain elements of 
high atomic weight are constantly breaking up into 
other elements of lower atomic weight, this disintegra- 
tion being caused by the atoms of the heavy element 
steadily and inevitably breaking up and losing some 
of their component parts. All atoms are now known 
to be composed of a certain number each of electrons 
and protons; and when an element loses one or more 
of these from one of its atoms, the remainder of this 
atom which is left behind has become one of the other 
elements lower down in the series. Uranium by its 
disintegration is changed into radium, and the latter 


ee 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 201 


after undergoing several more changes becomes one of 
the isotopes of lead. 

We have not yet been able to detect all of the ele- 
ments in this process of disintegration; but we have 
observed it in the case of several, and we infer that 
the same thing holds true of the others. Furthermore, 
no amount of heat or chemical manipulation serves to 
hasten this process of the disruption or disintegration 
of the atoms; and on the other hand no cold or other 
precaution seems to have the slightest effect in slowing 
up the process. This breaking up of the atoms of high 
atomic weight into other atoms of lower atomic weight, 
seems to be a fundamental tendency of the stuff which 
we call matter. And we have absolutely no knowledge 
whatever that the reverse process is anywhere going 
on throughout the universe, in spite of Prof. R. A. Mil- 
likan’s courageous speculation that somewhere, away 
off in the laboratories of the stars, this reverse process 
may be now going on.* (The Significance of Radium, 
Science, July 1, 1921.) 

Thus we have reached the conception of the uni- 
verse as being composed of over seven dozen kinds of 

1 Note.—Sir Oliver Lodge seems to have caught the same 
idea, and is trying to Coué himself into believing that some- 
where in the remote corners of the universe this building 
up of the elements is going on. He says: “But we have 
not learned how to pack hydrogen into helium or into any 
other of the heavier atoms—as yet. No, not yet. And yet 
it would appear that it must have been done, some time and 
somewhere; perhaps in the interior of stars, certainly in ways 
at present unknown.” (Scientific American, May, 1924.) 
Similarly some mechanic might say that he had not yet 
learned the trick of perpetual motion; or some belated fol- 
lower of Charlton Bastian might say that he had not yet 
been able to demonstrate spontaneous generation—as yet; no, 
not yet. 


202 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


elements which are like so many clocks all running 
down, with no means known to science of their being 
wound up again. From this it follows that these 
chemical elements cannot possibly have existed as they 
are from all eternity; for with an infinity of past ex- 
istence they must all have been disintegrated long ago, 
or must long ago have run down. Thus we reach the 
conviction that, so far as modern science gives us any 
information whatever, these elements, which are the 
bricks of which the material universe is composed, 
must at some definite time in the past have been 
created. It makes no matter how long ago its creation 
took place; it must have been a real creation, and the 
period of time since it took place must be of definitely 
limited duration. Matter certainly is not eternal; it 
must have been created by God. 


III 


We reach the same conclusion when we deal with the 
living things now existing on our globe. Science knows 
nothing of the theory of spontaneous generation, ex- 
cept that this theory has been wholly discredited by 
every suitable experiment during the last five decades. 
Life comes now only from antecedent life of a similar 
kind; and we know nothing that offers any promise of 
showing us how in our day the living can possibly arise 
from the not-living. In other words, spontaneous gen- 
eration can no longer be dignified with the title of 
being a scientific theory; it is quite unscientific; and 
Harvey’s dictum of Omne vivum ex ovo, has for many 
decades been victorious all along the line. 

This means that life in some form must have been 
created by God Himself. When Charles Schuchert, in 
speaking of this problem of the origin of life, says that 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 203 


“it is the greatest of the unsolved problems confront- 
ing man,” he only shows that as a materialistic phi- 
losopher he refuses to accept the plain and obvious 
teaching of modern science which would immediately 
solve this problem in the only possible way. I am not 
a materialist, and I am not ashamed to mention the 
name of God or the term “creation ”’ in connection 
with scientific explanations. Why should men balk 
like stubborn mules, when confronted with this ques- 
tion of the origin of life, and persist in saying that it 
is the greatest of all problems still remaining unsolved 
by modern science? Surely, if there is one problem 
that has been solved by modern science it is this re- 
garding the origin of living matter: 7t must have been 
created in the beginning. ‘There is no other explana- 
tion of the origin of life which deserves a moment’s 
consideration in this third decade of the twentieth cen- 
tury. The only rational theory to-day regarding the 
origin of life is that God created it. 

But right here we need to reason very carefully. 
There is no such thing as life in the abstract. That 
is, life is not an entity. It has no existence apart from 
concrete living substances or organisms. Accordingly, 
it must have been one or more of these organisms 
which God originally created in the beginning. Which 
of these was it? Are we to suppose that He made one 
little speck of protoplasm, such as one of the protozoa 
or a unicellular plant? How long, do you think, such 
a lonely little organism could exist? Only long enough 
to starve to death, unless there were innumerable other 
organisms accompanying it. This notion of life hav- 
ing originated in the form of unicellular organisms has 
been put forth by some who have not taken the trouble 
to think the matter out in detail; but it is in reality 


204 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


one of the most silly and childish theories with which 
I am acquainted. Its proponents seem never to take 
into account the fact that the living world as we know 
it, which is the only world of which we have any ex- 
perimental knowledge whatever, is a balanced world, 
an interdependent world; and it is impossible to con- 
ceive of the lower forms of life, even a multitude of 
them, as existing in the world without the existence 
also of the complementary forms of life which we call 
the higher organisms. I utterly refuse to believe that 
the unicellular animals and plants could exist for a 
week without many accompanying higher forms; and 
I also deny the possibility of these higher forms exist- 
ing for any great length of time without great multi- 
tudes of the so-called lower forms. The organic world 
as we have come to know it is a balanced and orderly 
world; and as far as we can judge its component parts 
are each essential for the welfare of all the other parts. 

What then was it that must have been created in 
the beginning? Some organisms must have been called 
into existence in a way different from any process that 
we now call a natural process. As I have pointed out 
in a former book (Q. EL. D., or New Light on the Doc- 
trine of Creation; 1917), the essential idea of crea- 
tion, as taught in the Bible, is that matter, and life, 
and the various distinct kinds of life, must have been 
brought into existence at some time in the past through 
a process wholly different, both in the degree and the 
kind of power exerted, from any process now going on 
around us which we call a natural process. The es- 
sence of the evolution doctrine is that. only these 
modern natural processes have prevailed during all 
past time; the present is the measure of the past and 
the measure of all the past. But creation is the exact 


\ 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 205 


antithesis of this. It teaches that things originated in 
the past by some method quite distinct from those 
natural laws which are now being displayed in per- 
petuating them. And we now see that so far as matter 
or life is concerned, they call for a real creation at the 
beginning, and negative the theory of evolution here at 
the very threshold of our investigation. 


IV 


But again I ask, What kinds of life must have been 
created at the beginning? 

Zoologists have divided the animals into a certain 
number of phyla or groups. The number of these 
phyla vary with different scientists from eight to eleven 
or more. Each phylum is divided into classes; the 
phylum Chordata, which includes the vertebrates, 
being divided into the amphibia, reptilia, mammalia 
and various others. But each class is again divided 
into orders; the mammalia being divided into the car- 
nivora, rodentia, the proboscidea, the primates, and 
many others. The orders are further subdivided into 
families, the families into genera, and the genera into 
species. 

Of course, in any system of clear thinking, we must 
understand that these phyla and classes and orders and 
families, and even the genera and species, are mere 
abstractions; they have no existence whatever except 
as we imagine a number of individual organisms to be 
grouped together and separated from all other animals 
so as to make one of these collections. The things 
that really do exist are the individual organisms. And 
it is obvious that in any system of evolution we must 
start with some lowly or “ generalized” forms which 
we may think are sufficiently inclusive to permit of the 


206 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


other or more highly specialized types being developed 
from them. In other words, we cannot start with a 
phylum, and evolve a class from it, and from the latter 
evolve an order and a family; for these are all abstrac- 
tions. What we must do, in any system of evolution, 
is to start with some such forms as the protozoa, and 
then try to imagine how the porifera, or sponges, have 
been developed from them. But the porifera will 
never do as the source or origin of the coelenterates, 
nor will the latter serve to originate the echinoderms, 
the arthropods, or the mollusks. In other words, all 
of these phyla are so distinct from one another that 
no stretch of the imagination will permit us to suppose 
that any one phylum has been developed from any 
other phylum as now existing. 

But the very same principle holds good with regard 
to the classes or even the orders. For instance, we 
have no scientific knowledge of how the vertebrates 
could have originated from any non-vertebrated types. 
Evolutionists are fond of asserting that the class Aves 
(birds) have somehow originated from the dinosaurs, 
or at least from some reptilian ancestors. But this is 
wholly incredible and without a shred of scientific evi- 
dence in its support. 

Similarly I deny that there is any scientific evidence 
to show that the placental mammals have sprung from 
the marsupials or the monotremes. Also I deny that 
there is any scientific evidence to show that such or- 
ders as the carnivora or the insectivora have sprung 
from some common “ generalized” ancestor. Further- 
more, I do not believe that the various families in- 
cluded in any given order have originated from any 
common ancestor. For instance, there are some 
twenty-two species of dogs found in North America, 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 207 


which are included under the family of the Canidae; 
some twelve species of bears included under the family 
of the Ursidae; also some eight species of cats included 
under the Felidae. All of these and many other fam- 
ilies are included under the order Carnivora. 

Now, I am willing to grant that all of the cats over 
the world may have had a common origin; that all of 
the bears may have had a common origin; or that all 
of the genera included under the Canidae may have 
had a common origin. Yet I utterly deny that there 
is any scientific evidence worthy of the name to inti- 
mate that the cats and the bears and the dogs have 
all sprung from a common more generalized type in 
the long ago. Of organic evolution in this sense of 
the term there is not a shred of evidence worthy of 
being called scientific. 

Thus we have reached the crux of our whole argu- 
ment. Charles Darwin entitled his great work The 
Origin of Species; and he and most of his successors 
have assumed that when they have proved the deriva- 
tion of several species from a common generic type, 
they have thereby demonstrated the truth of organic 
evolution. In previous chapters I have pointed out the 
high probability that many modern species have had 
a common origin in the not very remote past. Indeed, 
it would seem probable that not only many Jordanian 
“‘ species,” but even many Linnaean species, have or- 
iginated through natural causes since the original crea- 
tion. I believe this fully. It is even quite possible 
that in some cases at least all of the genera under a 
family may have thus been “ evolved,” if the reader 
wishes to use this term, from some common original 
stock. But to call this process “ evolution ” is a con- 
fusion of terms. 


208 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


In this connection, I consider the views set forth by 
Dr. H. B. Guppy, about 1906, and afterwards adopted 
and advocated by Dr. J. C. Willis and others, are not 
very far from the truth. Willis states the theory as 
follows, namely, “ that evolution did not proceed from 
individual to variety, from variety to species, from 
species to genus, and from genus to family, but in- 
versely; the great families and genera appearing at a 
very early period, and subsequently breaking up into 
other genera and species” (Age and Area, p. 221; 
1922. Cambridge University Press.) 

Guppy’s theory involves the thought that the great 
family types must have originated in the long ago by 
some process quite different from those processes which , 
have since split these family types up into genera and 
species. To quote his own words: ‘“ The age that wit- 
nessed the rise of the great families and the age that 
witnessed their subsequent differentiation are things 
apart, and cannot be dealt with by the same method ” 
(Linnaean Society’s Journal, Vol. XLIV, p. 457; 
1919). He does not expressly say that these family 
types must have been created, de novo; but I do not 
see what other alternative there can be. Because, to 
quote the words of Prof. D. H. Scott, which he uses in 
connection with this theory of Guppy’s about the or- 
igin of the great families of the angiosperms, ‘“‘ We 
know nothing whatever of the origin of the angio- 
spermous families ” (Extinct Plants and Problems of 
Evolution, p. 217; 1924). That is, we do not know 
any more about the origin of these great family types 
than we do about the origin of life itself. And who 
is there to-day with an adequate scientific training that 
will have the hardihood to defend the theory of spon- 
taneous generation? 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 209 


In the light of what these leading botanists are now 
telling us, I can see nothing left of the theory of or- 
ganic evolution as a whole. And if the zoologists 
would only learn the lesson that the botanists seem to 
have learned, I think that we would all be not far from 
the kingdom. 

Regarding the ancestral forms of the great families 
of both animals and plants, I can see nothing but a 
direct creation by the great Author of nature. Any- 
thing less than this I call speculation and pseudo- 
science. It seems to me that the creation of at least 
the families, and in some cases the genera, is the only 
hypothesis that in this year of grace, 1924, we can 
call scientific and reasonable. Furthermore, from the 
facts of geology as we now know them, we may well 
believe that all these great ancestral types may have 
been created together, and that they long lived con- 
temporaneously together, until many of them were de-| 
stroyed in the great world cataclysm. Because there 
is no adequate evidence, capable of critical examina- 
tion, which will prove that the invertebrates existed 
before the vertebrates, that the fishes lived before the 
reptiles, or the latter before the birds and mammals. 
Or to be specific, there is no adequate evidence that 
the dinosaurs lived before the elephants, or that the 
trilobites lived before the ammonites or the dinosaurs. 


V 


If now we turn to man and his nearest allies, the 
anthropoid apes, we find that the latter are placed in 
the Simiidae, with four genera, the gibbons, the orang- 
utans, the gorillas, and the chimpanzees; while the 
former is in a family by himself, the Hominidae, being 
designated as Homo sapiens, 


210 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


The physical resemblances between man and the 
anthropoid apes have been often recounted, but need 
not detain us here. These resemblances are admittedly 
considerable. Contrastediy, however, is the vast dif- 
ference in the mental faculties, not to mention man’s 
moral and spiritual capacity of communing with and 
obeying his Creator. 

Many arguments have been adduced to prove that 
man is a developed ape; yet not a single one of these 
arguments but would just as logically prove that the 
apes are degenerate or hybrid men. There are no clear 
and positive evidences from paleontology which would 
prove that the existing anthropoid apes existed before 


the great world cataclysm, or the Deluge. These. 


present-day anthropoid apes may be just as much a 
product of modern conditions as are the negroid or the 
Mongolian types of mankind. And if I were com- 
pelled to choose between saying that the apes are de- 
generate or hybridized men and that man is a devel- 
oped ape, I am sure it would not take me very long to 
decide which it would be. Nor do I think it ought to 
take any well-informed scientist long to make the 
choice. 

If we compare the modern elephants, or bears, or 
elks, or indeed any single type of mammal, with their 
fossil types of the Pleistocene, we see in every single 


case a degeneration. Similarly, when we compare the | 


best of the modern races of men physically with the 
Cro-Magnards of the deposits of Western Europe, we 
also see a degeneracy, although we cannot be sure that 
these Cro-Magnard men, the finest race the world has 
ever seen, as Macnamara says, were really antedilu- 
vian. Accordingly, by every just rule of comparison 
and analogy, we may well declare that if there is any 


CE ————— = hail 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 211 


blood relationship between man and the anthropoid 
apes, it is the latter which have degenerated from the 
former, instead of the former having developed from 
the latter. I do not say that this is the true solution 
of this enigma; but I do say that there is far more 
scientific evidence in favour of this hypothesis than 
there ever has been in favour of the long popular 
theory that man is a developed animal. 

There can be but one conclusion for every man in 
our day who will take the trouble to inform himself 
fully regarding all the scientific facts now available. 
Man was created, he has not evolved. By every 
known analogy, as we compare our modern mammals 
with the magnificent specimens of animal life which 
lie buried in the Pleistocene and Tertiary strata, yes, 
even in the Mesozoic beds, we may conclude that man 
originally was probably larger and of a more com- 
manding physique than at present. Probably we have 
not yet recovered any specimens of true antediluvian 
man. Certainly such examples as the Neanderthal 
skull-cap, the Heidelberg jaw, or the Piltdown skull, 
are not of this character; nor is there any good geo- 
logical or other evidence to prove that these specimens 
are very ancient, that is, that they were truly con- 
temporary with those semitropical mammals which 
roamed over Western Europe in those primal days of 
perpetual spring when the world was young. Whether 
we shall or shall not at some future day recover some 
true specimens of that antediluvian race, is merely a 
matter of conjecture, or of hope. But certain it is 
that all the scientific evidence now available points to 
the fact that man was originally created on a higher 
plane structurally and anatomically than he is at 
present. In this respect also, modern science is con- 


212 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION . 


firming that record in the early chapters of Genesis, 
that man was created “in the image of God.” 


VI 


In concluding this series of studies in regard to the 
origin of things, we must say that organic evolution, 
as commonly taught by scientists, is truly a phantom; 
it cannot be a true account of the method by which 
the plants and animals of our modern world have come 
to be what they are. All of those arguments under 
the influence of which it came into existence and gained 
popular acceptance, are now seen to have been falla- 
cious. We have been reviewing these arguments in 
the foregoing pages. But the overwhelming evidence 
against the entire idea of evolution, and in favour of 
the opposite doctrine of a real creation, can be appre- 
ciated only by looking at these.subjects in a broad 
way, and by including in our survey some things which 
are somewhat outside the field of biology proper. 

The facts now known to modern science which have 
a bearing upon this problem of creation versus evolu- 
tion, may be summarized as follows, the reader being 
referred to my special treatise on this subject for the 
more minute details. 

1. Matter must have been created. It is not 
merely that we know nothing of the evolution of mat- 
ter. Radioactivity proves that matter is disintegrat- 
ing, not evolving. ‘The ninety-two elements may be 
spoken of as just so many clocks now running down, 
with no known method of winding them up. Hence, 
they could not have existed in this condition during 
an infinite past time: they must have had a beginning. 
And the only adequate beginning which we can con- 
ceive of is a real creation by a living and eternal God. 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 213 


Matter is not eternal; it must have had a beginning, 
that is, it must have been created. 

2. Life must have been created. And this must 
have included many diversified forms of life, at least; 
for it is quite inconceivable that one little speck of 
protoplasm, such as a protozoon or a bacterium, could 
have lived and persisted, even if it had been created 
alone in the world. Just how much of a community 
of living things would be essential for the perpetuity 
of the whole, by providing for the interdependence of 
the various kinds of life, we do not know. But the 
web of life is so intricate, and withal so inexorable in 
its demands and conditions, that there is little doubt 
that several representatives at least of each of the 
phyla would be essential to the welfare of the whole, 
perhaps even essential to their sheer existence. And 
of course, the various animal forms could not exist 
without the complementary plants; for the latter are 
indispensable in preparing the inorganic elements as 
food for the animals, by means of photosynthesis. It 
may be questioned whether the existence of the higher 
vertebrates and of the higher orders of plants would 
be essential to the existence of the lower forms; prob- 
ably our replies to such a question would always be a 
mere matter of opinion. But it is scientifically cer- 
tain that a mere few of the lower forms of life could 
not exist very long alone on our earth, without a con- 
tinuous miracle being performed to keep them alive. 

3. It is incredible that the members of any single 
phylum could have developed out of the members of 
any other phylum; and also quite as incredible that 
any two phyla could have developed from any common 
original. This generalization seems so self-evident 
that it need not be discussed further. 


214 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


4, But it seems to me that the very same general- 
ization can be extended to the classes, the divisions, 
and the orders. As we are here dealing only with the 
animal kingdom, we may illustrate the last of these 
divisions, the orders, by such types as the Edentata, 
the Ungulata, the Carnivora, or the Primates. It is 
quite inconceivable that any of the orders could have 
been derived from any others, or that any two of them 
could have had a common origin by any methods of 
variation and heredity now known to us. I say, “ now 
known to us;” for if we permit ourselves to indulge 
in pure speculations, there is no halting until we reach 
the fantasies of Alice in Wonderland or of The Wizard 
of Oz. 

5. It seems to me that the very largest group which 
we can scientifically conceive of having all descended 
from a common original pair (and it needs a pair in 
every instance of the higher types), is the Family. I 
concede that it is believable that all the members of 
each of such families as the Felidae (cats), the Cani- 
dae (dogs, wolves, etc.), the Suidae (pigs), or the 
Equidae (horses), could be of a common origin, though 
I think that in some cases we ought to descend to 
the genus. ‘This uncertainty, however, is due to our 
methods of taxonomy. There is some unit of classifi- 
cation larger than a “‘ species”? as now commonly un- 
derstood, and usually larger than the genus, which 
must nevertheless serve as the largest unit which our 
scientific knowledge permits us to postulate as the 
group which now represents all the forms or kinds 
which have probably descended from some common 
original pair. Linnaeus had this same idea; only he 
called his unit the “ species.”’ Subsequent discoveries 
in biology have done two things for this concept; they 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 215 


have degraded the term “‘ species ” by pushing it down 
the scale to what Linnaeus wished to call varieties; and 
they have also shown that much more variation is pos- 
sible within the limits of the “ species ” than Linnaeus 
would allow. Hence, the term “ species” is now ut- 
terly spoiled for the concept for which Linnaeus in- 
tended it. In the light of modern knowledge, we may 
now use the term ‘“ Family ” in the original sense in 
which Linnaeus used the term “species,” when he 
said: Species tot sunt diversae quot diversae formae 
ab initio sunt creatae——thus making the number of 
species correspond to the number of kinds created in 
the beginning. To-day this dictum is absolutely true, 
if we substitute the word familia for the word species. 


VII 


The geological theory of a succession of life-forms, 
has long been supposed to forbid any such view of a 
real creation of all the leading types of life at some 
one time in the past. That is, geology has been sup- 
posed to prove that the various types of life have come 
into existence a few at a time, in a long series which 
has been supposed to have been truly chronological. 
But we now know that this is all a mistake. We now 
know that the Cambrian fossils are not intrinsically 
older than the Cretaceous or the Tertiary. To give 
but two examples, in Montana we know that the Cre- 
taceous fossils were deposited before the Cambrian 
and various other Paleozoic types, while in the Salt 
Range of India, the Tertiary forms were laid down 
before the Cambrian of that particular locality. In 
other words, we now know that these geological for- 
mations merely represent ancient floras and faunas 
buried near to their former habitats; and the geological 


216 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


series does not represent a chronology any more than 
would a similar serial arrangement of the floras and 
faunas of the modern world. 

This new knowledge from geology makes it easy for 
us to say that there could have been a real creation 
of all the leading types of life at some one definite 
time in the long ago. And now biology, in spite of 
Darwinism,—nay, even because of the studies inspired 
by the theory of organic evolution,—is telling us that 
we cannot understand how any of these leading repre- 
sentative types could have originated, except by a real 
creation. 

Also our modern knowledge regarding the possibili- 
ties of variation is now clearing up a very important 
difficulty. For when the idea of Cuvier prevailed re- 
garding the “ fixity ” of species, it was indeed a very 
great difficulty to account in a reasonable way for the 
many kinds of plants and animals which were salvaged 
from the ruins of the antediluvian world. A great deal 
of amusement has been extracted by scoffers from the 
account given in Genesis concerning the animals which 
were preserved in Noah’s ark. This difficulty would 
indeed be a’ real one if we had to suppose that samples 
of all the present “ species ” of animals were thus pre- 
served in the ark. But in the light of what we now 
know about the possibilities of variation, as brought 
out by modern experiments in breeding, this difficulty 
is enormously reduced. Just what the conditions of 
the problem would really be, in the light of the modern 
discoveries, it might be difficult to state; but at any 
rate this problem is not such a tremendous one as it 
once appeared to such men as Linnaeus, or Owen, or 
Agassiz, who believed the old ideas about the “ fixity ” 
of species. Charles Darwin had been brought up 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 217 


under these old ideas regarding the “ fixity ” of species, 
and his life-work was devoted to showing that “ spe- 
cies ” are not thus fixed, or wholly incapable of change. 
The vast amount of facts which Darwin brought for- 
ward proved very convincing to the scientific world. 
He seemed to prove his case completely. And subse- 
quent investigations have confirmed this part of what 
Darwin taught. Mendelism has now come in to sup- 
plement and clarify our knowledge regarding the pre- 
cise ways in which plants and animals tend to vary. 
But all of the facts which have thus been accumulated 
are now seen to be only so many means of assisting us 
to understand how the great diversity among the plants 
and animals of our modern world may have come 
about from comparatively few originals which survived 
from the great world catastrophe of the Deluge. 


Vill 


Thus we find ourselves back again to that point 
which we have already visited so many times in these 
studies, namely, to the idea that geology holds the 
master key to this entire problem of the origin of liv- 
ing things. In the light of all our modern knowledge, 
it is evident that the theory of organic evolution has 
but a very slender support in biology. Without a 
strongly contributory geological background, nobody 
would ever dream of a scheme of organic evolution. 
If geology cannot prove in the most positive and con- 
clusive manner that the Paleozoic animals and plants 
actually lived and died before the Mesozoic and the 
Tertiary ones came into existence, what is the use of 
talking about a theory of organic evolution? What 
method of origin for our modern plants and animals 
could we imagine, except a real creation of their repre- 


218 PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


sentative ancestors at some definite period in the long 
remote past? 

We may expect that there will always be those who 
will continue to speculate regarding the origin of 
things, just as there is still an annual crop of people 
who persist in fooling away their time with such mat- 
ters as perpetual motion or spontaneous generation. 
We cannot hope that the world will ever be free from 
such vagaries. But the time is coming when such 
puerilities will no longer be put before the world in 
the name of venerable institutions of learning, under 
the imprimatur of respectable publishing houses, and 
under the aegis of the sacred name of natural science. 

Here we must rest our argument. If the geological 
series does not represent a real chronology, but merely 
various contemporary faunas and floras; in other 
words, if the alleged chronology of the fossils is merely 
a big blunder, or at best an evolutionary assumption, 
the way is open for every intelligent person to believe 
in a literal creation of all the leading types of life, man 
included, as recorded in the first chapters of the Bible. 

This is the latest and most authoritative word of 
modern science regarding the oldest and most funda- 
mental problem of religion. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Bateson, Wm., Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts; 
Science, January 20, 1922. 

Bower, F. O., The Present Outlook on Descent; Nature, 
March 8, 1924. 

Dennert, E., At the Deathbed of Darwinism; 1904. 

Fairhurst, A., Organic Evolution Considered; 1913. 

Jeans, J. H., The Origin of the Solar System; Nature, March 
1, 1924. 

Lock, R. H., Variation, Heredity, and Evolution; 1920. 


UBINAM GENTIUM SUMUS 219 


Morgan, T. H., 4 Critique of the Theory of Evolution; 1916. 
Price, G. McC., The Fundamentals of Geology; 1913. 
Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of 
Creation; 1917. 
The New Geology; 1923. 
Scott, D. H., The Present Position of the Theory of De- 
scent; Nature, September 29, 1921. 
Extinct Plants and Problems of Evolution; 
1924. 
Shapley, Harlow, Address Before the Brit. Astron. Assn; 
Nature, 21, 28, 1922. 
Soddy, F., The Interpretation of Radium; 1920. 
Willis, J. C. (and others), Age and Area; 1922. 





! RELIGIOUS BOOKS OF THE HOUR‘ 
SSS eteseissessssestesesianenatnanesemssinaeeieneesaaemereeee eee 


HON. WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN 
! Former Secretary of State. 
In His Image 


James Sprunt Lectures, 1921. $1.75. 


New York Herald says: “This book is an event of 
importance. The author is spokesman for a large seg- 
ment of the people, and his work is a frank, vigorous, 
often eloquent appeal to revelation to the Bible accepted 
literally as the supreme teacher....Modern science does 
not yield readily to any incantation or magic formula, 
but it will be ill-advised if it underestimates the poten- 
tialities of a Byranized education...... Mr. Bryan has 
the courage of his convictions and realizes that revealed 
religion must rest squarely upon the validity of its 
revelation.” 


S. A. STEEL, D.D. 


oa 
The Modern Theory of the Bible 

$1.25, 

“The theory of modern rationalists is here answered, 

e author is an unflinching believer in the divine inspira- 

tion and authority of the Bible and his book is of strength 

and ability and attractiveness. It is refreshing to take up 

2 volume of such virility and Christian loyalty to divine 
truth.”—Herald and Presbyter. 


WILLIAM BANCROFT HILL 
Professor of Biblical Literature in Vassar Cellegé 


The Apostolic Age 
A Study of the Early Church and its Achieve- 


ments. $2.00 

Dr. Hill, author of “The Life of Christ,” furnishes, a 
careful and an exhaustive study of the dawn-time of Chris- 
tianity, in which he analyzes with great wealth of detail 
the methods adopted and foilowed by the first heroes o 
the Cross. The author believes the Apostolic Age was the 
supremely great missionary age of the Church and should 
be studied as such, 


JAMES E. DARBY, D.D. Pastor First Baptist Church 


a New Brighton, Pa. 
Jesus an Economic Mediator 


God’s Remedy for Industrial and International Ills. 
$1.50. 
*Mr. Moody in his day felt that the Church had lost its 
grip on the masses. He thought he saw the chasm growing 
wider every day. Mr. Moody was not alone in his criti- 
cism. It is a well-known fact that a large body of workers 
criticize the Church as organized. They believe that she 
is supported by the privileged class. Dr. Darby’s book will 
go far toward removing that reproach, if leaders in both 
camps—labor and capital, will study his message.”—Chris- 
tian Index. 





PREACHING PROBLEMS 





— 


GAIUS GLENN ATKINS, D.D. 


Modern Religious Cults ana Movements 
$2.50. 
Dr. Atkins has written a noteworthy and valuable book 
dealing with the new cults some of which have been 
much to the fore for a couple of decades past, such as: 
Faith Healing in General; Christian Science as a phil- 
osophy, a theology and religion; New Thought; Theoso- 
phy and Sracitantere etc. 


OZORA 8S. DAVIS, D.D. President, Chicago 
(Se Bs Ee + Gs ao LED Theological Seminary. 
Preaching by Laymen 

A Study of the Elementary Principles of Pre- 
senting the Gospel. Foreword by Roger W. 
Babson. $1.50. 

“Should be read thoughtfully by every Christian who is 
honestly desirous to the best things in his own spiritual 


development and the most rapid growth and advance of 
the kingdom.”—Watchman-Examiner, 


JAMES I. VANCE, D.D. 


Being a Preacher 
_ A Study of the Claims of the Christian Min- 
istry. James Sprunt Lectures 1923. $1.25. 
“No minister can read this book without thinking more 
highly of his yess of the greatness of the task in which 


he is engaged. The style throughout is fresh, racy and 
vigorous.’—The Presbyterian, 


JEFF 0. RAY. DED. 


Prof. of Homiletics and Pastoral Theology, South. 
western Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Tex. 


The Highest Office 


A Study of the Aims and Claims of the Chris- 
tian Ministry. $2.00. 

“The author has a unique manner of presenting a mes- 
sage that contains things new and old, and which eve 
minister, whether a beginner or a veteran, will do we 
to read.”—Religious Telescope. 


EDWARD MACK, D.D. 


Professor, Department of Hebrew and Old Testament 
Interpretation, Union Theological Seminary, 
Richmond, Va, 


The Preacher’s Old Testament 


The Stone Lectures (Princeton Theological 
Seminary), 1923. $1.25. 

In clear, forcible fashion, Dr. Mack directs his read- 
ers’ attention to the spreading, fallow fields of the Old 
Testament, and the rich fruit they can be made to yield 
the diligent, reverent worker, 





DEVOTIONAL 
fn SESS ee nae ar ee eeannrenes emma | 


JOHN WANAMAKER 


Prayers of John Wanamaker 


With an Introduction by A. G. MacLennan, 
D.D., Pastor, Bethany Central Church, Phila- 
delphia. $1.25. 

A large number of the prayers (of which the notes 
were preserved) are here brought together,—prayers 
that reveal a singularly childlike faith and simplicity 


of thought—which indicate how humbly and devoutly 
John Wanamaker walked and talked with God. 


JOHN TIMOTHY STONE, D.D. 


Pastor, Fourth Presbyterian Church, Chicago, Ill, 
Author of “Recruiting for Christ,’ etc 


To Start the Day 
A Thought, A Verse, A Song. $1.50. 


“A sentence thought, followed by a suitable verse of 
Scripture, and then by a stanza from a hymn or verse of 
2 poem, arranged for every day of the year for devotional 
reading and meditation.”—The Christian Guardian. 


ANNIE RICHARDSON KENNEDY 


A Year in John’s Gospel 


' Devotional Studies for Every Day. $2.00. 


A selection from the Fourth Gospel, a brief medita- 
tion thereon, and a short prayer—a separate page for 
each day in the year. The Scriptural passages cover the 
ae oe Gospel and are so arranged as to form a topical 
study. 


GAIUS GLENN ATKINS, D.D. 


A Rendezvous with Life 
Paper, Decorated. Net 25c. 


“Beautiful meditation. Life is represented as a jour- 
ney, with various ‘Inns’ along the way, such as Day’s 
End, Week’s End, Month’s End, Year’s End, etc., all of 
which are suggestive of certain experiences and duties.” 
—Religious Telescope. 


HARMON ALLEN BALDWIN 


The Fisherman of Galilee 
A Devotional Study of the Apostle Peter. $1.25. 


A book wrought in fine, spiritual temper, free of all 
controversial element, and devoted to a thoughtful ex- 
osition of the Petrine conception of the Gospel of 
esus Christ,  —=—- x 


QUESTIONS OF THE HOUR 





NEVILLE 8S, TALBOT, D.D. Bishop of Pretoria, 
The Returning Tide of nae 
1.50. 


The Congregationalist says: “‘A Modernist in temper 
and reahioal Bishop Talbot’s very literal belief in the 
Incarnation, the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth give 
added interest to the breath and intensity of his spiritual 
interpretation of these matters,” 


NOLAN RICE BEST Editor of “The Continent.” 


Inspiration 
A Study of Divine Influence and Authority in 
the Holy Scriptures. $1.25. 


Mr. Best’s new book “takes sides’ with neither con- 
servatives nor liberals. ‘“‘One of the sanest and best 
balanced discussions of the subject of inspiration of 
the Bible, for the average church member to read, 
which we have yet seen.”—Herald of Gospel Liberty. 


FREDERIC C. SPURR 


President of National Council of Evan- 
gelical Churches Great Britain. 


Jesus Christ and the Modern Challenge 
Can We Still Believe in His Divinity. $1.50. 


Mr. Spurr accepts the gage of battle which modern un- 
belief has thrown down, and with prest skill of fence, 
defends the priceless possession of the Christian be- 
liever. The defense of the faith is presented, and made 
to stand out irrefutably, as being impervious to the 
assaults of present-day unbelief or hostility. 


JOHN J. LAWRENCE, D.D. 
Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Binghamton, N. Y. 


The Christian Credentials 
An Appeal of Faith to Doubt. Introduction by 
S. Parkes Cadman, D.D. $1.50. 


Commencing with a review of the present theological 
situation, Dr. Lawrence depicts the character of the Di- 
vine Founder of Christianity, discusses the divine element 
in Christian origins, marshals the arguments of personal 
experiences, adduces the witness of history, and concludes 
with a survey of the religious trend and tendency of the 
age. 

RT. REV. JAMES E. FREEMAN, D.D. 
Bishop of Washington. 
Everyday Religion $1.50. 

“Here are gathered together about ninety short ser- 
mons, part of a harvest of a generous and constant 
roy from the hand and heart and brain of the Bishop 

a 


_Washington, related to the more practical phases ef 
aeligion.—Christian Advocate. 








DATE DUE 


i 


< 
” 
P= | 
z 
Q 
w 
i 
2 
x 
a 
a 
Ls 
° 


-! 
> 
< 
| oO 


oy ae 


4 


= 


= gee 
—- ee = S cS. = 


= 
a 


W 





QH366 .P945 
The phantom of organic evolution 
ical 


HON 


+ 1012 00146 4132 





